Oral
Answers to
Questions

Justice

The Secretary of State was asked—

Children Remanded in Custody

Marie Rimmer: What recent assessment he has made of the potential implications for his policies of the number of children being remanded to custody.

Alex Chalk: Custody is reserved for those convicted or accused of the most grave offences, and the total number of children in detention has fallen by 82% since 2010. Before a child can be remanded, the court must be satisfied that it is very likely that the defendant will receive a custodial sentence, and must have explicitly considered and rejected the option of remanding him or her into local authority care.

Marie Rimmer: Some 44% of places in youth custody are taken up by children and young people on remand who do not go on to receive a custodial sentence. Yet children held in young offenders institutions spend most of their time locked up in their cells, amid high levels of violence. Does the Minister think that that is the best place to spend time during adolescence?

Alex Chalk: The hon. Lady makes an important and compassionate point. It is absolutely right that we should invest in the estate, and I am pleased that we are investing in a new secure school, which will open soon. She makes an important point about the decision to remand. Those decisions are made by independent judges—that is correct—but I hope that she will join me in recognising that the reduction in the overall number of children in custody by 82% since 2010 is a positive thing. When I was prosecuting, young people were going inside for being passengers in vehicles taken without consent. Now, they are inside only for the most grave offences.

James Gray: Will the Lord Chancellor take into consideration one of the recommendations of the Wade report on sentencing for murder? The definition of “children” should be reconsidered. At the moment, someone who is 16 or very often 17 might be tried when they are 18, but they are sentenced as if they are a child. Surely the question should be the crime rather than the age.

Alex Chalk: We have altered the sentencing regime such that the courts can take into account what can be quite significant gaps between the sentencing regime that applies to a 17-year-old and that which applies to an 18-year-old. The courts now have additional discretion to ensure that if somebody is very close to their 18th birthday, they can be treated as more mature, which can mean, in appropriate cases, that the punishment will be more severe.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Janet Daby: Almost two thirds of children on remand in youth detention do not go on to receive a custodial sentence, and 17% are acquitted, meaning that they were freed from a criminal charge altogether. It costs between £129,000 and £306,000 per year to keep just one child on remand in youth custody. Does the Minister view that as the best use of public money, or does he feel that it could be managed in a more efficient and effective way with an alternative remand provision?

Alex Chalk: In 2010, the total number of children in custody was over 3,000; that figure is now around 500, so there has been a significant reduction. The decision of whether to remand is a matter for the judges. They can remand in custody only if there are substantial grounds for believing that, if released on bail, the child will commit further offences or indeed fail to surrender. We are also investing millions of pounds in Greater Manchester, for example, to see whether there are other options in remanding children into local authority accommodation and not necessarily into custody.

Public Confidence in Victim Support

Tonia Antoniazzi: What steps his Department is taking to help ensure public confidence in the support provided to victims throughout the criminal justice process.

Gareth Thomas: What steps his Department is taking to help ensure public confidence in the support provided to victims throughout the criminal justice process.

Laura Farris: With the Victims and Prisoners Bill, we are putting the victims code on a statutory footing. It includes a right for any victim of crime to be signposted by the police to correct and appropriate support services. We have quadrupled victims funding since we took office in 2010 to over £150 million a year, and have recruited almost 1,000 independent sexual violence advisers and independent domestic violence advisers into the criminal justice system. In addition, we provide a range of freephone support lines, including a 24/7 hotline for rape.

Tonia Antoniazzi: Rapists, domestic abusers and stalkers cannot be convicted if trials are not going ahead, and victims are dropping out after being made to wait years for justice. Where is the Government’s plan to tackle the record court backlog, which is making victims wait years for justice?

Laura Farris: We are doing a huge amount to drive down the backlog, which was principally a result of the pandemic. We have increased the fees for both solicitors and barristers by 15%; we have kept open more than 20 Nightingale courts; and we are doing everything within our power to drive down waiting times.

Gareth Thomas: Bearing in mind that Harrow Crown court is not set to reopen for another year because of Ministers’ failure to invest in its repairs early enough, what confidence can victims of crime in Harrow have that Ministers are going to get those who are accused of those crimes to justice much more quickly than is currently the case?

Laura Farris: As the hon. Gentleman will know, the issue with Harrow Crown court is that reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete was discovered in that building. We are investing more than £220 million in the court estate, because we know how much it matters, not just so that the courts are functioning, but so that the buildings convey the right sense of dignity so that people respect the process. Harrow is just one of 350 courts in England and Wales.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

Bob Neill: The Minister is right to recognise the work that is being done on the victims code, and I appreciate the Government’s taking on board a number of the recommendations made by the Justice Committee when we engaged in pre-legislative scrutiny of that Bill.
The Minister will know, however, that there is a particular issue with delays in cases of rape and serious sexual offences, where cases are taken out of the list because prosecuting counsel are not available—they simply cannot be found. She rightly referred to the increase in fees for solicitors and defence counsel. Does she agree that there is now just one piece of the jigsaw that needs to be put in place: to bring the fees for prosecuting counsel in those cases up to the same level as those for defence counsel? That would take about £1.5 million. Will she sit down with the Attorney General and talk with her about how we can do that swiftly?

Laura Farris: I can reassure my hon. and learned Friend, the Chair of the Select Committee, that I spoke to the chair of the Bar Council about exactly that issue last week, but I want to provide him with further reassurance. First, there has been correspondence between the Lord Chancellor and the senior presiding judge about any case of rape that is more than two years old. That correspondence is a couple of months old, and he said that all cases would be listed by July this year—that applies to 181 cases in England and Wales. I also want to draw my hon. and learned Friend’s attention to something I know he will be aware of: that we have increased the fees for section 28 hearings, which take place in an irregular sequence in the court listing, from £670 to over £1,000.

Andrea Jenkyns: On Monday, The Daily Telegraph reported that civil servants are trying to block an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill that would legislate for the publication of an annual report on crime stats by nationality. Does the Minister support the release of such a report, and  what does she think civil servants are worried we will find out? It is time to publish a report and restore trust among the general public.

Laura Farris: I thank my hon. Friend for her question. I was not aware of that, but I knew that an amendment had been suggested that was not within the scope of the Bill. My hon. Friend’s suggestion is a sensible one; we already publish the number of foreign national offenders in prison, but I understand the force of her question, and I am happy to meet her to discuss it further.

Apsana Begum: More than 60 lawyers, campaigners, politicians and academics have written a letter in support of the anti-violence against women and girls campaigner and barrister Dr Charlotte Proudman, who is facing disciplinary action after challenging a judge for taking a “boys’ club attitude” in a ruling on a domestic abuse case. Does the Minister agree that the racial, gender and class-based bias of the justice system must be addressed and that it is right to speak up against injustice? Will she join me in paying tribute to those who are campaigning for a legal sector that genuinely represents, empowers, and is accountable to the wider public?

Laura Farris: I count myself as one of the people who campaigns on violence against women, and there are many other right hon. and hon. Members across this House who do the same thing. The hon. Lady will understand, I hope, why I will not get involved in a disciplinary matter concerning a particular barrister. I know what it is said has been said, and it will be for the relevant standards committee to decide whether or not the barrister is at fault.

Mike Penning: The Minister may be aware that I used to be the victims Minister, and when I was in that role, I tried to stand up for victims whose loved ones had been killed by road traffic incidents. It is fundamentally unfair that if someone is charged with death by careless driving, as compared with death by dangerous driving, the case is not appealable by the victim for leniency. Is that something we are still looking at, as was the case when I was in the Ministry?

Laura Farris: I share my right hon. Friend’s profound concern about death caused by either dangerous or careless driving. As he knows, it was the Conservative Government who created a criminal offence of death by careless driving.
I will just make two points. First, on 28 June 2022, the maximum penalty for the offence of death by dangerous driving was increased to life—previously, it was 14 years. Secondly, we have just agreed to extend the unduly lenient sentence scheme so that the complainant will have 28 days to put in their appeal to the Attorney General and the Solicitor General, who will have a further 14 days to contact the court. We hope that that will encourage more applications, and of course, we keep the category of offences under careful review.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Kevin Brennan: Victims should have the right to know who this Government are letting out of jail early. With today’s news that, despite Ministers’  protestations to the contrary from the Dispatch Box, high-risk offenders have been released early, why should the public have any confidence that this is a Government who put victims first?

Laura Farris: I want to provide some reassurance to the shadow Minister. Under our scheme, no sexual offender, no terrorist offender and nobody who has been convicted of a serious violent crime or been convicted for four years or more will be eligible for early release. I would just remind him that the slight distinction between our scheme and that conducted under the last Labour Government between 2007 and 2010 is that we have a governor lock. That means that the governor of any prison can prevent an individual prisoner from being released early if they do not think that it is suitable to do so, and that was not the case under the last Labour Government.

Employment Tribunal Panels

Alan Brown: What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of proposed reforms to employment tribunal panels.

Gareth Bacon: The employment tribunal panel composition arrangements are now a responsibility of the Senior President of Tribunals, and I understand that he intends to publish the responses to the consultation on proposed reforms shortly. He has a statutory duty to consult my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor before making these arrangements, and my noble and learned Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice will be meeting the Senior President of Tribunals—I think tomorrow—to discuss his proposals as part of that duty.

Alan Brown: The introduction of tribunal fees previously led to a 54% drop in the number of cases going forward, and the scheme was deemed unlawful by the Supreme Court, so it beggars belief that the Government are looking at reintroducing tribunal fees, and giving a green light to bad employers to exploit workers, who will be deterred from coming forward. What does the Minister say to the 50 organisations, including the TUC, Citizens Advice, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and Liberty, that are calling on the Government to reconsider the reintroduction of tribunal fees?

Gareth Bacon: I thank the hon. Member for his question. Many of these issues were raised when the statutory instrument passed through Parliament. The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), who is the courts Minister, has written to the Senior President of Tribunals to convey those concerns, and I think that is in part why my noble and learned Friend is meeting the Senior President of Tribunals tomorrow.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Alex Cunningham: The wheels of justice certainly turn slowly under this Government, and hundreds of thousands of people across the country are paying the price in the Crown courts, the civil courts, the family courts and tribunals. At the end  of 2023, the employment tribunal backlog stood at more than 460,000 cases. Those are cases affecting workers who have been bullied, workers who have been denied pay and workers who have been unfairly dismissed. Does the Minister think that workers, like the Government, should just give up on the justice system, roll over and accept what employers do to them, or is there a new magic formula to sort this out?

Gareth Bacon: The one thing the hon. Gentleman did not of course mention was the impact of the pandemic on the criminal justice system, and indeed on the employment tribunal system. [Hon. Members: “Oh, come on!”] Opposition Front Benchers do not like hearing it, but they cannot deny the impact of shutting down the system, in effect, for two years. We have massively increased the resources available and we are working through the backlog, but that will take time.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the SNP spokesperson.

Chris Stephens: On a similar point, in a cost of living crisis, workers are now expected to pay to take their employer to an employment tribunal in cases of wage theft, unpaid redundancy pay and compensation for unfair dismissal. Quite frankly, it is outrageous that this is being levied at a time of intense pressure on family budgets. Do the Government not agree that access to justice must never be contingent on one’s ability to pay, and that these proposed changes ought to be scrapped to promote greater fairness in the system?

Gareth Bacon: I thank the hon. Member for his question. We have introduced a regional virtual court to safeguard access to justice, and we will always make that available as far as it is possible to do so. As I say, we are working through the backlog at pace.

Rwanda: Asylum and Immigration

Alison Thewliss: If he will issue guidance to lawyers on the potential implications for the criminal justice process of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024.

Alex Chalk: The hon. Lady asks about the implications for the criminal justice system of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024. To be clear, that Act relates to immigration and potentially administrative law. It does not substantially impact on the criminal law, and accordingly no specific guidance is required.

Alison Thewliss: I thank the Secretary of State for that response. May I praise the quick response from solicitors and the community in Glasgow to Rwanda removals, very much in the spirit of the Glasgow Girls and the Glasgow Grannies and Kenmure Street three years ago? Is there a deliberate policy to remove people from Scotland to England to prevent them from accessing legal aid, as they would be able and fully entitled to do in Scotland? What guidance has been issued to lawyers in this respect? Lastly, what right do MPs have to intervene in cases of removal, because I have been told that MPs have been asked for wet signatures from people who have been taken to immigration removal centres in England.

Alex Chalk: There are several questions in there but the answer to the first question is no, that is not correct. The point about legal advice is very important: people should get legal advice so that they can make their points. That is why we are investing heavily: when the Illegal Migration Act 2023 comes into force there will be a 15% uplift; we have invested £1.5 million to reaccredit senior caseworkers; and we are also paying for travel time. We recognise that; the legislation is necessarily robust and we are also ensuring people get the legal advice they need.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call Scottish National party spokesperson.

Chris Stephens: I listened with great interest to that answer. My hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) and for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) and I have constituents who have been removed from Scotland to England and threatened with deportation. Can the Secretary of State answer this question: why are MPs being denied access to their constituents? It seems outrageous. Does he not agree that this is unacceptable and that lawyers and their elected representatives should not be impeded by arbitrary barriers when accessing constituents who are threatened with deportation?

Alex Chalk: I would be more than happy to discuss that point with the hon. Gentleman. Of course MPs should have access in appropriate circumstances, but the critical point is for individuals to get legal support—I say that with no discourtesy to him as a constituency MP. That legal support is important. As I have said, when the IMA comes into effect we will increase funding by 15%, pay for travel time and ensure the reaccreditation of senior caseworkers. That is what individuals need: support through legal advice, and that is what we are providing.

Parc Prison

Jessica Morden: What recent assessment he has made of the welfare of prisoners at HMP Parc.

Edward Argar: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question and also for her typically measured and sensitive contribution to yesterday’s urgent question on this issue. Ensuring our prisons are safe and secure for both staff and prisoners remains our top priority. His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service has been working closely with G4S, the operator of HMP Parc, to ensure the welfare of prisoners, and I visited last month to see  the work for myself. I am particularly conscious of the importance of that in light of the nine deaths in HMP Parc since March.

Jessica Morden: As the Minister mentioned, yesterday I had the opportunity to raise in the House the very real concerns of parents with sons at Parc, particularly in relation to drug use. When I contacted the prison two months ago it replied that in the year to September 2023 there had shockingly been 1,600 incidents of self-harm in a prison of 1,800 inmates. Does the Minister accept that parents have been asking particularly for mental health support for years and it has not been happening?

Edward Argar: I am grateful to the hon. Lady again for her question. The provision of mental health support is absolutely vital; it is obviously something that needs to be done hand in hand and in partnership with the local health board in Wales. We continue to work closely with the health board both on the issue she has raised and more broadly on the issues underpinning some of the challenges faced in Parc.

Vicky Ford: The Minister will be aware of the dire, indeed dangerous, situation we faced at Chelmsford Prison three years ago, when the prison was placed in special measures. He may have seen the latest inspection report which praises the improvements, especially in being a safer and more productive place and the work done to take drugs and contraband out of the prison. I thank the Justice Secretary personally for the focus he gave this issue when he was prisons Minister, and congratulate the governor and the staff. Does the Minister agree that the lessons from Chelmsford could help other prisons such as Parc and that, with the right approach, even the worst prison can be turned around?

Edward Argar: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her dexterity in asking her question. She makes a very important point in paying tribute to the work that has been done at Chelmsford prison by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, working with the team and all the staff there. I also note the close interest she has taken and how much that means to the staff and the team at her local prison. She rightly points out that there are opportunities to learn lessons from that which may well benefit prisons such as Parc.

Children and Young People: Reoffending

Lilian Greenwood: What recent assessment he has made of the potential implications for his policies of reoffending rates among children and young people.

Edward Argar: Over the 10 years to 2022, proven reoffending rates, cautions and convictions for children and young people have fallen from 40.4% to 32.2%. Although there has been a slight uptick over the past year, the fact remains that reoffending by children and young people has fallen significantly under this Government.

Lilian Greenwood: Last week I saw the powerful new play “Punch” by James Graham. I cannot recommend it highly enough to all right hon. and hon. Members, who are welcome to come to Nottingham Playhouse to see it. It raises important questions about young men and their offending behaviour and shines a light on the potential power of restorative justice. What role does the Minister believe restorative justice can and should play in tackling reoffending, which, as he said, has risen for the first time in a decade among adults and children?

Edward Argar: I am grateful to the hon. Lady not just for her question, but for her kind invitation to visit Nottingham Playhouse—it is just up the road from my constituency in Leicestershire, so I might take her up on that. In answer to her substantive question, although decisions on restorative justice are a matter for judges—there are relevant considerations to take into account—I see  restorative justice as one element of a package that can help to reduce reoffending and get children and young people who commit crime back on to the straight and narrow.

Prisons: Illegal Drugs

Beth Winter: What assessment he has made of the potential implications for his policies of trends in the number of drugs found in prisons over the last five years.

Edward Argar: The Government take a zero-tolerance approach to drugs in prison, as is reflected in our policy approach, which has seen £100 million-worth of investment into measures to tackle the smuggling of contraband, including drugs, into prisons. In the year ending March 2023, there were 19.7% fewer incidents where drugs were found than in the year to March 2019, reversing that pre-pandemic trend. There remains more to do, but it is important to note that progress has been made.

Beth Winter: The most recent report by HM inspectorate of prisons into HMP Parc in 2022 found that almost half of prisoners had easy access to drugs, and our current Welsh Affairs Committee inquiry into prisons has received evidence regarding drug use, as well as the fact that Parc is understaffed and staff are inexperienced. In light of that evidence, and the recent deaths and surge in recorded violence in Parc Prison, would the Minister welcome a new inspection by the chief inspector? Given the £400 million cost of the contract for G4S to run the prison, has he given consideration to the Prison Service stepping in to manage it, as it has done with Birmingham Prison?

Edward Argar: The hon. Lady made a number of points. In terms of tackling drugs, in Parc we have X-ray body scanners and the Rapiscan system, and we have handheld devices being rolled out. In respect of her two specific questions, any inspection is a matter for the chief inspector of prisons. In terms of the overall performance of Parc, it is important to remember that although there are challenges, which were addressed in the urgent question yesterday, Parc is rated as performing well and its contract is performing well. In the 2022 inspection, it got one measure of “good” and three of “reasonably good.” There is more to do, and we will continue to work with the prison, but the contract continues to perform well.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Ruth Cadbury: The Government boast, as they have done just now, about their investment in new body scanners to detect drugs on everyone entering a prison each day, yet a damning report in The Times found that the body scanners at HMP Bedford were not even staffed. What is the point in spending £100 million on scanners if they are not even used?

Edward Argar: Before turning to the substance of the hon. Lady’s question, may I take this opportunity to wish her a happy birthday? [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
It is important to remember that this investment is across the estate. I was in HMP Wandsworth yesterday seeing the work being done there. In the context of Bedford, the body scanners were used at appropriate times in an appropriate manner.

Custodial and Community Sentencing

Richard Graham: If he will make a comparative assessment of the effectiveness of short custodial sentences and sentences served in the community.

Gareth Bacon: Ministry of Justice reoffending statistics show that those serving a sentence of six months or less have a 59% reoffending rate. For offenders punished with suspended sentences or community orders, the reoffending rate is 24%. The Department’s 2019 analysis of a matched cohort of over 30,000 offenders showed lower reoffending rates for those serving sentences in the community when compared with immediate custody of less than 12 months, avoiding tens of thousands of potential crimes.

Richard Graham: I agree with the Bishop of Gloucester that community payback schemes are often far more appropriate than short-term custodial sentences, particularly for women prisoners. If my hon. Friend agrees with that, does he also agree that we could expand the range of community payback activity to include, for example, helping at good local charities such as the Nelson Trust and the Family Haven, and, especially during this summer season of litter picking across the country, keeping Britain tidy?

Gareth Bacon: I thank my hon. Friend for that sensible question. I agree that community payback offers offenders an opportunity to make visible reparations to their local communities, with millions of hours being delivered each year. As an example, this March, for the great British spring clean, offenders spent thousands of hours clearing litter across the country. We are trialling a new way to deliver community payback through the rapid deployment pilot, which was launched last year. Community payback teams are working in partnership with local authorities to see incidents cleaned up within 48 hours’ notice, and we are now expanding that to all 12 probation regions.

Jim Shannon: Restorative justice in Northern Ireland has been an effective method of ensuring that victims and perpetrators can at least come together and perhaps try to find a solution. It is also a way of ensuring lesser sentences. Has the Minister been able to look at the community restorative justice that we have done in Northern Ireland to ensure that those on the mainland who offend can have a new life as well?

Gareth Bacon: I personally have not, but I gather that Minister of Justice officials are abreast of that. I would like to meet the hon. Gentleman to hear more about that from him personally.

Prison Capacity

Jeff Smith: What progress his Department has made on delivering 20,000 new prison places.

Mary Robinson: What steps he is taking to increase prison capacity.

Alex Chalk: Thanks to funding from the Prime Minister when he was Chancellor, we are delivering the largest prison building programme since the Victorian era, with 10,000 additional places on track to be delivered by the end of next year. To secure the pipeline of further prisons, last October I announced an investment of £30 million to acquire land even further in advance to mitigate the risk of planning delay. We are also delivering an additional 460 rapid deployment cells across the estate.

Jeff Smith: The National Audit Office warned the Government over four years ago that prisons would run out of space by 2023. Of the promised 20,000 places, it has been revealed that only just over a quarter have been delivered, so as a result we see the Government spending £50 million renting out police cells, grim conditions in overcrowded prisons and a chaotic early release scheme. Why have the Government proved incapable of averting this crisis?

Alex Chalk: As a result of the record amount of investment in prisons, we brought on HMP Fosse Way, and we have HMP Five Wells. I invite the hon. Member to visit them, because these are excellent, modern prisons with fantastic rehabilitative conditions, providing an excellent opportunity to keep the public secure and prisoners rehabilitated. We will also be rolling out HMP Millsike. We have planning permission for HMP Gartree. We are also rolling out houseblocks at Stocken, Rye Hill and Guys Marsh; and there will be further ones at Gartree. This is a Government who believe in building, and we are getting on with the job.

Mary Robinson: Managing prison capacity is in part about ensuring that we have enough prison officers, but being a prison officer can be both demanding and dangerous, with 70% of prisoners between the ages of 25 and 49—at the peak of their physical fitness. My prison officer constituent told me that, despite that, the officer retirement age is 68, meaning that staff well into their 60s are dealing with young and often aggressive people. While it is important to retain experienced prison officers and recruit to the service, what consideration has my right hon. and learned Friend given to reducing the retirement age in line with policing?

Alex Chalk: Prison officers are the absolute backbone of the system, and it is absolutely right that we should recruit and retain. I am pleased to say that in 2023 we recruited an additional 1,600 officers and, just as importantly, the resignation rate is coming down, from 10.5% to 8.5%. That is really positive. On my hon. Friend’s point about retirement, it is worth knowing that the employee contribution rate to pensions for prison officers is one of the most competitive in the public sector. That is exactly as it should be. On the specific point of retirement age, I will be happy to discuss that with her further.

Non-disclosure Agreements

Wera Hobhouse: Whether he has had recent discussions with Cabinet colleagues on the use of non-disclosure agreements in sexual assault, harassment and misconduct cases.

Laura Farris: It is important to flag at the outset that confidentiality clauses are only ever used in the civil context, rather than the criminal. With that in mind, we are tabling an amendment to the Victims and Prisoners Bill to make any non-disclosure agreement void if it purports to restrict the right of an individual to report the same act to the police or to access any kind of medical or therapeutic support—a move that has been welcomed by many, including the Law Society and the Bar Council.

Wera Hobhouse: Thousands of people are silenced due to non-disclosure agreements and gagging clauses in cases of alleged sexual violence, bullying and harassment. The Legal Services Board has reported that signatories of NDAs suffer devastating impacts due to fear of retribution. Pregnant Then Screwed has said that an estimated 435,295 mothers have been gagged by an NDA or confidentiality clause. The Bill tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) would end the misuse of NDAs in the workplace. Why are the Government so hesitant about supporting a statutory ban?

Laura Farris: As someone who spent more than a decade practising as an employment lawyer, I can tell the hon. Lady that there is a role for the confidentiality clause in any kind of compromise agreement when both sides resolve their dispute without going to court, and without admission of liability or any finding of liability on either side. We recognise that when they are used in their most extreme form, particularly in the most high-profile sexual harassment claims, victims have told us that they felt they could not go to the police or access counselling. We have righted that wrong. However, I will stand up for confidentiality clauses, and I want to correct slightly the hon. Lady’s point: they are only really encountered where there is a dispute concerning the Equality Act 2010. That needs to be immediately contextualised—it applies only in employment, education and in the provision of goods and services. We have taken the same step in relation to students through the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023.

Reoffending Rates

Bob Blackman: What steps he is taking to reduce reoffending.

Alex Chalk: Reducing reoffending is a core mission of these Ministers and this Government. That is why we have prioritised accommodation for prison leavers and why we have invested heavily in employment, with prison employment leads and employment hubs in every resettlement prison. Crucially, the plan is working: in the two years to March 2023, the proportion of prison leavers in employment six months post release more than doubled.

Bob Blackman: Clearly, providing safe and secure accommodation for ex-offenders when they leave prison is the first and most important part of getting them on the path to rebuilding their lives. What action is my right hon. and learned Friend taking to ensure that that happens, so that people are not tempted to reoffend?

Alex Chalk: No one in this House has done more than my hon. Friend to look after the plight of people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. I am proud to say that the proportion of offenders in homes for their first night post release is 86%. That is because we have rolled out 12 weeks of guaranteed community accommodation. I went to Luton and Dunstable and spoke to a probation officer who had worked there for 30 years, and he said that was the single most significant policy roll-out of his entire career. It is critical to ensure that prisoners and ex-offenders can be rehabilitated.

Gregory Campbell: Does the Secretary of State agree that reoffending rates would reduce further if we had a more concentrated attack on the illicit substances that continue to go into prisons, as well as the massive use of prescription drugs, which many people in prisons tell me are causing problems for people close to release?

Alex Chalk: The hon. Gentleman raises an excellent point, and he is right. The reoffending rate is worth focusing on: in 2010 it was around 31%, and now it is 25%. The reason for that is a combination of focusing on accommodation, as we have just discussed, and employment so that people have a stake in society, as well as tackling substance abuse. We are looking at technology with great focus, to ensure that people can be treated for their substance addition on the inside by the very clinicians who will treat them on the outside. That continuity is vital to get them off drugs and rehabilitate them.

Support for Jurors

Sarah Dyke: If he will make an assessment of the adequacy of support available to jurors who have been adversely affected by sitting on a jury.

Gareth Bacon: Juries are a vital part of our criminal justice system, and jury service is an important civic duty. We want to do everything we can to help jurors feel supported as they undertake that important role, which is why the Government have announced our intention to test counselling sessions for jurors who suffer mental and emotional strain following a trial. That pilot will commence in 15 courts this summer.

Sarah Dyke: Currently, jurors dealing with extremely violent crimes, witnessing ever-increasingly sophisticated and graphic material, often feel that they do not have sufficient aftercare to deal with their experiences. They are advised to seek counselling only with their GP or the Samaritans. What discussions has the Minister had on increasing the amount of post-trial support for jurors when they have faced potentially traumatic levels of stress as a result of their experience?

Gareth Bacon: I thank the hon. Lady for her question, which is extremely relevant. As she can imagine, there have been extensive discussions between the Department and the judiciary about this. The senior presiding judge has approved the test sites for the pilot that I have just discussed. Support of the type that we are providing in the pilot has not been provided before, so the pilot itself will inform an essential part of the judgment we make on whether and how we can carry on.

Immigration: Legal Aid

Steven Bonnar: What recent assessment his Department has made of the adequacy of legal aid provision for immigration cases.

Alex Chalk: Access to legal aid matters. We have taken action to broaden access in immigration and asylum cases by: uplifting fees for work done under the Illegal Migration Act 2023, when it commences; providing up to £1.4 million this year for accreditation and re-accreditation of senior caseworkers conducting legal aid work; allowing detained duty advice scheme providers to give guidance remotely, where appropriate; and introducing payment for travel time between immigration removal centres and detained duty advice scheme surgeries.

Steven Bonnar: The Bar Council of England and Wales has submitted its grave concerns to the Ministry of Justice’s review of civil legal aid, citing that it is
“not sustainable in its current form”
and that it has significant concern
“in relation to future availability of counsel”
in immigration and asylum cases. It also notes that in real terms civil legal aid fees have now halved compared with what they were 28 years ago. What are the next steps to ensure the future of legal aid in immigration cases, or is justice now for only the wealthy?

Alex Chalk: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that important question. We are broadening access to legal aid. The means test review, when fully implemented, will put an additional £25 million into legal aid and bring an additional £2 million into the scope of legal aid. We are rolling out the housing loss prevention advice service—that is another £10 million going in. There will be up to £141 million going into legal aid. We are also rolling out the review of civil legal aid, which will report later this year. We will be issuing a Green Paper in July to look at what we need to do to have a sustainable, resilient and well-resourced system, because we want high-quality lawyers doing civil legal aid. That is vital for the kind of country we want to be.

Court Case Backlogs

Alistair Carmichael: What recent assessment he has made of the potential implications for his policies of the case backlog in the criminal and civil courts.

Alex Chalk: We remain committed to reducing the outstanding case loads across our courts in England and Wales. To enable the courts to get through more cases, we have extended the use of 20 Nightingale   courtrooms this financial year, allocated £220 million for essential modernisation and repair work of our court buildings up to March next year, and funded unlimited sitting days, including 107,700 days during the most recent financial year, the highest level since 2016.

Alistair Carmichael: For anyone who has been a victim of crime, delays in getting cases into court add massively to the stress and anxiety they experience. What would the Secretary of State say to any Member whose local magistrates court had 1,954 criminal cases waiting to be heard at the end of December 2023? Would he say that a backlog of that scale was acceptable?

Alex Chalk: The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point about magistrates courts. It is true that case loads in magistrates courts, which of course deal with over 90% of crimes—common assault, criminal damage, non-residential burglary and so on—are significantly lower than they were during the pandemic. The particular pressure is in the Crown court. We made a decision of principle during the white heat of covid not to get rid of jury trials. Now, I know that in Scotland the SNP Government are a little ambivalent about jury trials, but we think they are a very important part of the rights of free-born Britons. We will hold fast to them and we will put in resources: more Nightingale courts; more judges, by raising the retirement age; and more legal aid. We will invest in and recover the system while holding fast to our principles.

Shailesh Vara: When I was a Justice Minister, I introduced virtual hearings so that cases could proceed much more effectively. Will the Lord Chancellor kindly update the House on the progress of those hearings?

Alex Chalk: I am delighted to hear from my right hon. Friend, who was such a distinguished Minister in this Department. He did indeed introduce virtual hearings in our courts, and time has proved how prescient he was, because that was the right thing to do. I welcome the recent decision by the Judicial Office to make remote hearings the default arrangement for bail applications. In a wider context, a private Member’s Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter), which is currently making its way through Parliament, will amend legislation so that magistrates and judges in magistrates, county and family courts will be able to hear cases remotely when that is appropriate.

Legal Aid

Mohammad Yasin: What progress he has made on implementing the recommendations of the National Audit Office report on the Government’s management of legal aid.

Alex Chalk: The National Audit Office report on the management of legal aid was a valuable piece of work, and we are considering its conclusions carefully. The Government hugely value the work of legal aid lawyers, which is why we commissioned a review of civil legal aid to identify options for the delivery of a more effective, efficient and sustainable system for legal aid providers. A Green Paper containing policy options is planned for July this year.

Mohammad Yasin: There are no providers of housing legal aid in the borough of Bedford, and the number of people living within 10 km of a provider of legal aid housing advice in England and Wales has fallen from 73% to 64% in the last decade. Does the Secretary of State agree that whatever legal redress is provided in the Renters (Reform) and Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bills will be meaningless if there is no legal aid system to enforce those reforms?

Alex Chalk: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the £10 million that is going to the Housing Loss Prevention Advisory Service, which is a revolutionary step to ensure that those who are at risk of eviction can access the legal aid they require in order to make their case. I respectfully invite the hon. Gentleman to come and see me so that I can discuss this with him further and he can be a voice for his constituents, signposting them to the support that is available, because it is important for them to be aware of the support that the Government are providing.

Domestic Abuse

Caroline Nokes: What steps he is taking to prevent domestic abuse perpetrators from using the justice system to extend control over victims.

Laura Farris: The Government have taken significant steps to prevent domestic abusers from using the justice system to extend control over their victims. Section 65 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 prevents them from cross-examining their victims and requires special measures to be available in court, and we have also amended prohibition orders under section 91(14) of the Children Act 1989, which can bar any individual from making a further application to court without permission when abusive partners are judged to be bringing victims back to court without reasonable purpose.

Caroline Nokes: My hon. Friend takes domestic abuse very seriously, but is she aware that perpetrators all too frequently seek to use the civil courts to perpetrate further abuse of their victims, often with the support of legal aid and often using “experts” with no relevant qualifications to make accusations of, for instance, parental alienation or child grooming? Can she please reassure me that the Government are taking this matter seriously, to ensure that perpetrators do not continue to use our courts system to retraumatise their victims?

Laura Farris: My right hon. Friend asks an excellent question, but let me first remind her that this is precisely the issue at which the section 91(14) prohibition orders are directed. Moreover, one of the changes made under the Domestic Abuse Act gave the courts themselves the power to make those orders of their own volition, rather than waiting for an application from the victim.
As for the second part of my right hon. Friend’s question, to the extent that we are making changes to legal aid, all those changes are in favour of the victim. We are removing illiquid and contested assets from consideration of means, all protective orders can be obtained without any assessment of means, and we are undertaking a legal aid means test review to make the test much more generous to victims.
My right hon. Friend’s final point concerned the so-called experts who give evidence on parental alienation. The Government do not recognise the concept of parental alienation, and do not believe that it is a syndrome capable of diagnosis. We have responded to the Domestic Abuse Commissioner on this subject in writing.

Topical Questions

Virendra Sharma: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Alex Chalk: Since the last session of Justice questions, I have met my G7 ministerial counterparts in Italy to discuss topics ranging from preventing illegal migration to tackling organised crime. Furthermore, we have announced a new offence—in which, incidentally, my G7 colleagues were very interested—prohibiting the creation of sexually explicit deepfakes, announced measures to remove parental responsibility from those convicted of the rape of a child, made progress with the Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill in the House of Lords to support access to justice for those such as the postmasters, and introduced an amendment to the Victims and Prisoners Bill to provide further protection for victims against unnecessary disclosure of counselling notes.
I have also attended the “Unlocking Investment in Ukraine” conference, which brought together Ukrainian lawyers and eminent British jurists. We in this country understand the importance of a strong legal sector to secure Ukraine’s future. The British people and this Parliament are determined to ensure that once it has won the war, Ukraine wins the peace as well.

Virendra Sharma: With more than 80,000 children caught up in private family law proceedings, what is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that the welfare of children is protected?

Alex Chalk: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising private family law, because all too often people raise the issue of crime, but family matters too. I am really delighted that we have managed to secure funding from the Treasury to roll out early legal advice in private family law. Alongside the Pathfinder pilot scheme, it is designed to make the process of dealing with private family disputes more seamless and less painful, and ultimately ensure that children are put first.

Elliot Colburn: People in Carshalton and Wallington, particularly women, are being targeted in so-called “crash for cash” insurance scams. Could my right hon. and learned Friend outline what support is available to victims of this sort of crime?

Alex Chalk: If someone is the victim of a “crash for cash” scam, they are likely to be the victim of an offence under the Fraud Act 2006 or, potentially, under the Road Traffic Act 1988. We have quadrupled the funding for victims of crime, who are entitled under the victims code to be kept updated about the crime, to be notified about compensation and to be offered special measures   if the case gets to court. Regardless of whether someone is the victim of “crash for cash”, theft or any other crime, the state should be there to provide the support they need.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Shabana Mahmood: This week the chief inspector of prisons found that, at HMP Lewes, the Government’s early release scheme is undermining safety and risk management. In one case, a high-risk prisoner was released early despite being a risk to children, having a history of stalking and domestic abuse, and being subject to a restraining order. Is this the Secretary of State’s idea of putting public safety first?

Alex Chalk: I read that report with care and will be looking very carefully at that specific case. It is important to read precisely what the chief inspector said. He said that that was an incident right at the beginning of the process, and he expected that things would bed down as we move on. The critical point is that under the Government’s scheme, if there is a concern about an individual who is proposed to be eligible, the governor can impose a veto, which gets the decision escalated  to a panel. That is an important safeguard, and it was not present under the Labour scheme, as the hon. Lady well knows.

Shabana Mahmood: Report after report; failure after failure. At Parc Prison, nine people have died in just two months. At Bedford, cells were flooded with raw sewage. At Wandsworth, a suspected terrorist escaped last year, the prison is still not secure and the governor has resigned. She has taken responsibility. When will the Secretary of State?

Alex Chalk: The hon. Lady is right to say there are prisons where the standards are not where we want them to be. There are something like 120 prisons in the estate, and we are the party that created the urgent notification system so that these matters can be drawn to the attention of the Government, but I will make the following point. There are prisons that have failed in the past, and we have turned them around. Take HMP Liverpool, which I went to. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), who is Chair of the Justice Committee, will remember that in 2017 there was a scathing report about the prison, which has been turned around. It is safe, decent and rehabilitative, and prisoners are doing excellent work. Or take HMP Chelmsford, which had a UN and has been turned around. We take this issue incredibly seriously, and we are the party that is investing record amounts in our estate. In government, Labour boasted that it would bring in three Titan prisons, but it brought in one.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Secretary of State, this is topicals. I have to get your colleagues in, and I am sure you would not want them to miss out.

Theresa Villiers: A number of my constituents in Chipping Barnet tell me that they continue to have problems with delays in getting court judgments implemented by bailiffs. Will   the Secretary of State do everything he can to tackle delays in the courts and bailiff system, especially for possession proceedings, where there continue to be real problems, causing delays and costs?

Alex Chalk: I thank my right hon. Friend for that important point. Fewer than 1% of tenancies required court action in 2019, but for difficult cases that do escalate to the courts, the Government recognise the importance of making sure that the process is smooth and efficient. Nearly 90% of county courts are currently listing possession hearings within four to eight weeks after a claim is received. On bailiff recruitment issues, we are running recruitment campaigns and have reduced administrative burdens to free up resources for bailiffs to focus on enforcement activity.

Rachel Hopkins: The Government’s latest panic measures to deal with the prison capacity crisis, including expanding the early release scheme to 10 weeks, have simply fuelled the probation crisis instead, with staff warning that many of these releases are unsafe and result in recall in a matter of days. Can the Minister confirm what specific extra resources he has recently put into this struggling service, so that it can cope with the sharp rise in probation workloads?

Edward Argar: The hon. Lady is right to highlight the work of probation. I put on record—as I know my shadow would and I know she would—our gratitude to all those who work in our probation service. Over the long term, since 2021 we have put an extra £155 million a year into the probation service, and 4,000 more staff in training. She will have also seen the recent announcement made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor in respect of the probation reset to enable probation officers to focus their time on where it makes the greatest difference and has the greatest impact.

Rob Butler: We know that our prisons are extremely full, for the entirely understandable reasons that the Lord Chancellor has set out, but that often means that they cannot do the job of rehabilitation that we would all like them to. Will the Minister look again at the proposals I put forward with the Centre for Social Justice for a tough new sentence called the intensive control and rehabilitation order, to be served in the community but under strict conditions including GPS tags and compulsory courses to reduce the likelihood of reoffending?

Gareth Bacon: I can confirm to my hon. Friend that officials have reviewed and considered ICROs, which involve the use of electronic monitoring, curfew arrangements and rehabilitative requirements targeted towards offenders who would otherwise be in custody. In June last year, we began a pilot of a scheme similar to the one he proposes, involving intense supervision courts, which divert offenders with complex needs away from short custodial sentences and provide them with wrap-around, multi-agency support to target the root causes of their offending behaviour.

Judith Cummins: Today, at an event organised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain), I am meeting my constituents who were encouraged by the solicitors firm SSB Law to pursue no win, no fee claims against defective cavity wall insulation providers. SSB Law subsequently went into administration, leaving my constituents with extortionate legal costs from defendant lawyers. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that the Solicitors Regulation Authority has the necessary powers to provide my constituents with the protection, compensation and justice that they deserve?

Alex Chalk: I thank the hon. Lady for raising that important point on behalf of her constituents, and I will write to her.

James Gray: It is now five years since my constituent, Ellie Gould, was brutally murdered in her own home. Her assailant been given a paltry 12-and-a-half-year sentence. Recently, a man who killed a stranger in the street was given 25 years, but simultaneously, on the same day, someone who cut his wife up into hundreds of pieces and disposed of the parts in a river was given a sentence starting at only 15 years. The Wade review recognised the terrible disparity between domestic murders and non-domestic murders, and called for that disparity to be corrected. Will the Secretary of State now tell us when he is going to reply to the Wade review? I hope that he will take due account of it and will equal up the sentences so that people who are guilty of domestic murders pay the same penalty as those who kill someone in the street.

Gareth Bacon: In response to the Wade review, we have increased sentences by introducing statutory aggravating factors for murders that are preceded by controlling or coercive behaviour, that involve overkill or that are connected with the end of a relationship. We have also consulted publicly on sentencing starting points for murders preceded by controlling or coercive behaviour and for murders committed with a knife or other weapon. The Government are carefully considering the responses to the consultation and will publish their response in due course.

Mohammad Yasin: The urgent notification issued last week to Wandsworth Prison raised the same issues found at HMP Bedford six months ago. Both revealed a horror show of violence and overcrowding in filthy environments, with horrendous levels of self-harm and drug misuse. The staff try their best but lack experience. Does the Minister accept that it is his Government’s funding cuts and policy failures that have delivered a broken justice system that offers little hope of reform for prisoners or protection for victims?

Edward Argar: No, I do not accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman’s question, which may not surprise him. In respect of Bedford Prison, which he and I have spoken about, we continue to put the investment into both staff and the prison to make progress following that urgent notification.

Dehenna Davison: A constituent recently attended my surgery in Bishop Auckland to disclose her serious concerns about poor communications from both the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service and the family court-appointed children’s guardian in her case. This is an extremely distressing time for her and her family, so good communication is surely key. How can the Minister ensure that my constituents will receive the support and advice they need in a timely fashion?

Alex Chalk: I thank my hon. Friend for being so assiduous in raising this important matter on behalf of her constituents. We are investing heavily in the family system to deal with precisely these issues. If something has gone wrong in that specific case, perhaps she will be kind enough to come to see me so that we can discuss it further.

Bambos Charalambous: There are 2,796 prisoners with indeterminate sentences for public protection languishing in our prisons, 705 of whom are 10 years over their original tariff and 112 of whom had a tariff of less than two years and are now over tariff by 15 years or more. The MOJ’s refreshed IPP action plan clearly is not working, so what does the Secretary of State plan to do to fix this dire situation?

Alex Chalk: The total number of IPPs is slightly higher than that but, looking into the data, the really significant factor is that, whereas there were some 6,000 IPP prisoners in 2012, the number who have not been released is down to around 1,200. Our action plan tries to address that. Our reforms are designed to ensure that, when IPP prisoners are released, they do not face a licence period of 10 years, which can lead to them being recalled at any time. Reducing it to three years is a humane and sensible way of trying to erase this stain on the conscience of our justice system.

David Davis: Yesterday, The New Yorker published a 13,000-word inquiry into the Lucy Letby trial, which raised enormous concerns about both the logic and the competence of the statistical evidence that was a central part of the trial. The article was blocked from publication on the UK internet, I understand because of a court order. I am sure that court order was well intended, but it seems to me that it is in defiance of open justice. Will the Lord Chancellor look into this matter and report back to the House?

Alex Chalk: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising this. Court orders must be obeyed, and a person can apply to the court for them to be removed. That will need to take place in the normal course of events.
On the Lucy Letby case, I simply make the point that juries’ verdicts must be respected. If there are grounds for an appeal, that should take place in the normal way.

Sarah Dyke: Taunton Deane magistrates court had 1,027 outstanding criminal cases in the first quarter of 2023, and the Justice Secretary’s own constituency, as of the end of December, had 1,954. These delays are letting down victims, their families, witnesses and defendants, while undermining public confidence in the criminal justice  system. How does he plan to tackle this backlog? Will he provide those working tirelessly in our courts with adequate support and resources to carry out their duties?

Alex Chalk: We have increased capacity in the system. We have opened 20 Nightingale courts, including Cirencester Crown court in my county of Gloucestershire. We have increased the number of judges by 1,000. We have put up to £141 million into legal aid. We have raised the retirement age. And we are ensuring there is support for victims, including through independent sexual violence advisers and independent domestic violence advisers, and by introducing a rape support helpline, and so on. We are doing everything we can to support victims, to increase capacity in the system and to heal the damage caused by covid.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

Bob Neill: The Lord Chancellor will know that there is particular concern about the growth of the remand population in our prisons, which causes great disruption. He will also know that the senior presiding judge and others are taking innovative measures to list remand cases, but will the Lord Chancellor confirm that, to support that, there will be no financial cap on sitting days in the Crown courts?

Alex Chalk: As always, my hon. and learned Friend gets to the heart of the matter. Before the pandemic, around 9,000 people were in custody awaiting trial. The figure is now closer to 16,000, which plainly has an impact. It is because we did not get rid of jury trials, which was the right thing to do. I am grateful to the Lord Chief Justice and the senior presiding judge for considering remote hearings of bail applications, to ensure that more lawyers are able to do the cases. Having enough practitioners, as well as sitting days, is critical, and both will have my attention.

Fleur Anderson: Last week’s letter to the Justice Secretary from the chief inspector of prisons again highlighted the dreadful conditions in Wandsworth Prison. Will the Secretary of State take urgent steps to end the overcrowding?

Alex Chalk: The hon. Lady is right to raise this hard-hitting, searing report. I was interested to note that, although there is a full complement of officers, the prison simply is not delivering the regime that it should. We absolutely accept that. Of course, the high remand population is an issue at Wandsworth, but Cardiff and Liverpool have achieved fantastic results. It can be turned around, so we are responding rapidly. We have already invested heavily, and £24 million has been spent. We have already deployed extra staff at all grades, and we will be providing support. A prison standards coaching team is offering face-to-face coaching for band 3 officers, with further deployment shortly.

Shailesh Vara: I appreciate that an inquiry is being conducted regarding the Horizon scandal, but what is the Department doing to hold to account those lawyers who prosecuted sub-postmasters despite the evidence being to the contrary?

Alex Chalk: Anybody who appears in court, but particularly prosecutors, must be mindful of their solemn and sacred duty to disclose material to the defence that might reasonably be considered capable of undermining the case for the prosecution—that is literally the  most important rule. If they failed in this case, I would expect the appropriate authorities to take robust and prompt action.

Lindsay Hoyle: For the final question, I call Imran Hussain.

Imran Hussain: Since I last raised this question with Ministers, it has now been estimated that there are more than 10,000 victims of the SSB Law scandal. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) said, we are hosting an event later today to listen to those victims talk about the real impact on their lives—I extend an invitation to the Minister. Will he commit to my asks of real compensation and protection for the victims of what is now a national scandal?

Alex Chalk: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that kind invitation. I will consider it and respond in due course.

Illegal Migration Act:  Northern Ireland

Gavin Robinson: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Home Department if he will make a statement on the High Court judgment in Belfast of 13 May 2024 disapplying the Illegal Migration Act 2023 in Northern Ireland.

Tom Pursglove: Let me start by expressing the Government’s disappointment at this judgment. We continue to believe that our policy is lawful, that our approach is compatible with international law and, specifically, that the Illegal Migration Act proposals are compatible with article 2 of the Windsor framework. The Government will take steps to defend their position, including through an appeal. We have consistently made it clear that the rights commitments in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement should be interpreted as they were always intended and not expanded to cover issues such as illegal migration.
This judgment changes nothing about our operational plans to send illegal migrants to Rwanda this July or the lawfulness of our Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024. We continue to work to get regular flights off to Rwanda in the coming weeks, and nothing will distract us from that or from delivering to the timetable I have set out. We must start the flights to stop the boats.
The Government have consistently applied immigration law on a UK-wide basis. It is important to remember that those who have been served a notice for removal to Rwanda are being considered under the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 and the Safety of Rwanda Act. This judgment relates to the Illegal Migration Act and so does not impact our operations or planning for Rwanda.
Preparations to begin flights within weeks are continuing at pace. As the Prime Minister made clear, “nothing will distract us” from the job of implementing the Rwanda policy. We must start the flights to stop the boats. That is the fair thing to do, it is the right thing to do for our country and it is the humane thing to do. Our conviction that the Rwanda scheme is lawful and necessary is unchanged. We are acting in the national interest and we will not be deterred.

Gavin Robinson: I am grateful for that response, and I thank the Minister of State in the Northern Ireland Office and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for being present today. But we need not be here, as the issues elucidated yesterday by the High Court in Belfast were fairly and thoroughly explored in this House, and in the other place, during the passage of both the Illegal Migration Act and the Safety of Rwanda Act. When my colleagues and I raised these concerns here in Parliament, we were told by the Government that we were wrong, yet the High Court in Belfast said yesterday that we were right. The only difference between the encroachment on the application of our sovereign immigration policy in Northern Ireland, as of the rest of the United Kingdom, by the Illegal Migration Act is that a case was advanced on the basis of that Act, yet a case on the Safety of   Rwanda Act has not yet been considered. However, the Government will know that the rationale outlined yesterday by the High Court for the Illegal Migration Act will similarly apply to the Safety of Rwanda Act as well.
It need not be so. Although the Government chose to dismiss the concerns we outlined in this House, and that our colleagues outlined in the other place, they had an opportunity to put this issue beyond doubt. I tabled an amendment to new clause 3, along with my colleagues, giving the Government the opportunity to put the issue to bed, in order to maintain the integrity of this country’s sovereign immigration policy and the integrity and protection of our borders, but they chose not to do so. I am grateful that the Minister has indicated his willingness to appeal, but when they had the opportunity to put the issue beyond doubt, why did they not do that? Do they recognise that in not doing so they have significantly impaired the uniformity of the UK’s immigration policy?
In 1922, long before the EU was envisaged, and long before the UK joined and then departed, the islands of Great Britain and Ireland had an integrity in immigration policy: the common travel area applied. What steps are the Government taking to get a British Isles solution to immigration, outside the control of the EU and outside, as it is, the Schengen area? Finally, what steps will the Minister and his Government take to assert Parliament’s sovereign will to protect the borders of the United Kingdom?

Tom Pursglove: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his constructive tone as he eloquently makes his case. I note the narrative that he has advanced. The Government are considering judgment very carefully, as you would expect, Mr Speaker, and we are taking legal advice. I can reconfirm, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, that the Government intend to appeal the judgment.
We have consistently made it clear that the rights commitments in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement should be interpreted as they were always intended, and not expanded to cover reserved issues, such as illegal migration. We are equally clear that immigration is a reserved matter that has always been applied uniformly across the UK. We do not accept that the Good Friday agreement should be read so creatively as to extend to matters such as tackling illegal migration, which is a UK-wide issue and not in any way related to the original intention of the Good Friday agreement.
On the specific point about the common travel area, all immigration legislation provides a UK-wide framework for legal and illegal migration. We continue to have a constructive working relationship with the Irish Government when it comes to ensuring that abuse of the common travel area is robustly and appropriately tackled. On the specific point about asserting Parliament’s sovereign will around these matters, I would argue that the recent Safety of Rwanda Act clearly asserts Parliament’s sovereign will. While the latest judgment relates to the IMA, we are committed to appealing it.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.

Robert Buckland: This case, together with the case a few months ago about the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation)  Act 2023, have a common theme: the applicability of article 2 of the Windsor framework and the direct application of EU law. What are the Government going to do about that? Will they seek to expedite the appeal directly to the Supreme Court? It seems to me this is a fundamental issue that need resolving. Further, will they seek further clarification, either from the Joint Committee on the Northern Ireland protocol or by other means, to clarify the situation and protect non-devolved matters from being dealt with in this way?

Tom Pursglove: I am always grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for his contribution. He speaks with real authority, given his professional background, his role in this House, and his former position as a distinguished Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor. He will recognise that the court will make its final order in two weeks, when an appeal can be brought. He made a number of observations, on which Ministers will reflect when taking decisions, but as I have said, and as the Prime Minister has made very clear, it is our intention to appeal this judgment. We think that it is right and proper to take all steps necessary to defend our position.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Stephen Kinnock: The Conservative chaos continues. It truly beggars belief that just weeks after the Prime Minister negotiated the Windsor framework in February last year, he promptly brought forward immigration legislation that appears to have left Northern Ireland with immigration rules that are different from those for the rest of the UK. Concerns about the Illegal Migration Act 2023 were raised at the time by the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), as he has just pointed out; why did the Government choose to ignore his warnings? I do not believe that the Minister answered the questions that the right hon. Gentleman just put to him.
We on the Labour Benches are utterly committed to upholding both the Good Friday agreement and the Windsor framework in all their dimensions, but this Government appear to be more committed to their failing Illegal Migration Act. Can the Minister assure the House that nothing that the Government do will in any way compromise the Good Friday agreement or the Windsor framework?
For those who are understandably struggling to keep up with the never-ending stream of immigration legislation that has been flowing from this Government, the Illegal Migration Act was the second of three Bills, all of which had one goal in mind—sending asylum seekers to Rwanda—and all of which are completely failing on their own terms. It has been a shambles from start to finish. Meanwhile, we on the Labour Benches are clear about the problem that we face: large numbers of desperate asylum seekers are crossing continents, exploited by criminal smuggling gangs who operate routes across the English channel, and are being met by an incompetent and clueless Conservative Government who have lost control of our borders and are addicted to headline-chasing gimmicks.
In contrast, the Labour party would never have gone down the Rwanda rabbit hole. Instead of wasting taxpayers’ money on Rwanda, we would introduce a new border  security command, with extra resource and new powers to go after the criminal gangs. Instead of using expensive asylum hotels, we will deliver our backlog clearance plan, and will have a new returns unit to remove people with no right to be in the UK. I once again urge the Minister to stop flogging this dead horse of a Rwanda policy, and to instead adopt Labour’s pragmatic plan to stop the Tories’ small boats chaos and fix our broken asylum system.

Tom Pursglove: Different week, same rant. Week on week, we hear the same rant about the Opposition’s position, but they have no credible plan to stop the flow of people crossing the channel. I simply do not accept the shadow Minister’s characterisation of the situation. Let me be clear for him: yes, we will uphold our legal obligations—we are committed to that—but the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 does not engage the Good Friday agreement, including the rights chapter. Those rights seek to address long-standing, specific issues relating to Northern Ireland’s past, and do not extend to matters engaged by the Act. I should also reiterate for him, because perhaps he missed this, that we are operationalising the Rwanda policy on the basis of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022.
As for the Opposition Front Benchers’ very scant alternative for tackling illegal migration, which the shadow Minister today again proffered to the House, I can tell him that we have already doubled National Crime Agency funding for immigration and crime. We already have thousands of officials working on this matter in the migration and borders directorate. In practice, his policy means a migrant amnesty, and letting thousands of illegal migrants, who should not be here, stay in the UK indefinitely. He would end the Rwanda scheme—the Leader of the Opposition has been very clear that he would end that, come what may—but it is already working and deterring people from making crossings. The Opposition would allow tens of thousands of claims to be lodged from outside the United Kingdom, undoing all the progress we have made in addressing the asylum backlog. They would also do a deal with the European Union—one that will not stop the boats—taking 100,000 asylum seekers every year from EU countries. I do not think that is a credible offering to the country. The Opposition just do not get it. They are trying to take the public for fools. Fortunately, we have a plan, and we are getting on and delivering on it. We are delivering resources, and we will see our plan through.

Bill Cash: Will my hon. Friend indicate the extent to which the Illegal Migration Act 2023, the Windsor framework and the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, as it relates to the sovereignty of the whole United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, could have been worded sufficiently clearly and unambiguously to remove the grounds for this judgment, in line with the disapplication principles set out in paragraph 144 of the Supreme Court judgment on Rwanda from last November, which is extremely clear?

Tom Pursglove: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his contribution. I refer him and all right hon. and hon. Members to the position that I have set out. The Government are clear that the will of Parliament has been expressed on these issues. The position is as I have set out, and we will robustly defend it.

Lindsay Hoyle: We come to the SNP spokesperson.

Alison Thewliss: The SNP welcomes the judgment from the High Court of Belfast, and thanks the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the individual in the other case for taking this matter forward. It is important that these awful pieces of legislation are challenged. I note to the Minister that this judgment came from a domestic court, not the international courts that the Government seem so terribly afraid of and consistently run down. The court found that the Illegal Migration Act 2023 was incompatible with article 2 of the Windsor framework and with the European convention on human rights; sections 2, 5 and 6 of the 2023 Act lead to a diminution of rights. The court also found incompatibility between the 2023 Act and the Human Rights Act 1998 on the duty to remove, obligations to potential victims of modern slavery and human trafficking, and responsibilities to children and their best interests—all extremely serious matters that remain of concern.
As the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) said, all this was entirely predictable. The Government were warned about the implications for the Good Friday agreement throughout proceedings on the Illegal Migration Act and the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024. Can the Minister say why his Government failed to heed the warnings and expert advice? Why did they ignore the status of Northern Ireland, and what now for the applicability of the Rwanda Act in Northern Ireland?
My fellow Scottish MPs and I are disturbed by the fact that our constituents, neighbours and friends are not even afforded the same rights as those in Northern Ireland. What are the implications of that decision for the Union? Human rights should be for all of us.

Tom Pursglove: I can probably answer that question fairly rapidly. We fully understand the position of the Scottish National party, which has been consistently expressed during the passage of the various pieces of legislation. The SNP does not support the Government in our efforts to tackle illegal migration head-on. The position is as I have described; I will not give a running commentary on ongoing litigation, but we are determined to appeal this judgment. We are taking legal advice, and as I have said, I can be very clear that the judgment changes nothing about our operational plans to send illegal migrants to Rwanda this July, or the lawfulness of our Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024. Concerns have been expressed about migrants flocking to Northern Ireland to avoid deportation to Rwanda, but there is absolutely no benefit whatsoever to doing so. We are operationalising this policy on the basis of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022.

Suella Braverman: I thank my hon. Friend for coming to the Chamber; I hope he is enjoying life back at the Home Office. In the decision, the judge found that section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, as amended by the Windsor framework, must be read as meaning that Northern Ireland is effectively to be treated as part of the European Union. I believed the assurances given to me at the time, but is it not patently clear now that the Windsor framework has operated in a way that undermines our sovereignty  and Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom, and has fundamentally failed on its first contact with reality?

Tom Pursglove: I refer my right hon. and learned Friend to what I have said about our determination to appeal the judgment. As she knows from real experience, immigration is a reserved matter and policy should be applied consistently across the UK, as we have done consistently to date.

Claire Hanna: The European convention on human rights is not just a key part of the UK’s unwritten constitution, but fundamental to the Good Friday agreement. That is where the commitment to the vindication of rights flows from. Yes, Brexit and the provisions that have followed have underpinned those rights and have allowed for the pursuance of a remedy. Perhaps those who championed the Brexit project might step through the consequences of their actions better in future. I am glad that our region has additional protection, but the ruling is very clear: the Illegal Migration Act 2023 is not compatible with human rights, and the declaration of incompatibility has implications in all jurisdictions. Is it not time that the Government developed an actual strategy that focused on safe routes, targeting people-smuggling gangs and investing in efficient processing? Is it not time we had an actual plan, instead of this £400 million performance of cruelty?

Tom Pursglove: I profoundly disagree with the hon. Lady’s stance on Brexit, and I respectfully disagree with her interpretation and characterisation of the situation that we are discussing. We have seen over half a million people come to this country via safe and legal routes since 2015. We can all be enormously proud of that as a country, but there is a moral imperative to shut down the evil criminal gangs that are responsible for taking people’s money and bringing them across the channel in unseaworthy vessels, with no regard whatsoever for human life—for whether those people arrive safely.
We will do everything necessary within our power to put those evil criminal gangs out of business. To date, we have made progress through the plan that has been delivered, but this is the important next step in rendering the business model redundant. I urge the hon. Lady to rethink her position. It is not good enough to say, “It’s all too difficult,” and just allow unlimited numbers of people to make those very dangerous crossings, without having an alternative country to relocate people to when there is no prospect of removing them to their country of origin.

John Redwood: We voted in a referendum to end the rule of EU law throughout the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland. Given the muddle that the courts are creating, is not the only way out of this an urgent, short piece of legislation that asserts beyond doubt that we control our own borders?

Tom Pursglove: The Government believe that we have a legal basis for this. I recognise my right hon. Friend’s determination for us to get on and deliver on the Rwanda policy. That is precisely what we are doing, on the basis of the Nationality and Borders Act at this stage, but when it comes to the IMA, we believe that we have a strong legal basis, and that is why we are appealing the judgment.

Tim Farron: Across the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, there are 90,000 of our fellow human beings who have arrived in the UK since March last year and are in limbo—their claims are not even being triaged—while they await a third country to take them. The Government know that most of these folks will turn out to be genuine refugees if their cases are ever assessed. They are nevertheless sat rotting at the taxpayer’s expense, vulnerable to exploitation and unable to move on. Even this Government admit that the majority will never go to Rwanda, so what is the Government’s plan for those 90,000 souls?

Tom Pursglove: We are clearly committed to commencing the Illegal Migration Act as soon as possible. The hon. Gentleman will know about the work that has gone on in the Home Office over the last year or so that has dramatically improved asylum decision-making productivity—all efforts that would be out of the window, were those on the Opposition Front Bench to form a Government. We will take appropriate decisions on individual cohorts; I will not get into that on the Floor of the House today—

Tim Farron: That’s your job!

Tom Pursglove: The hon. Gentleman keeps chuntering from a sedentary position, but the fact is that we take appropriate cohort-related decisions. The message must be very clear that people should not be coming to the United Kingdom via perilous journeys on small boats. That is not an acceptable position to be advocating. We will not advocate that position, and will continue to take steps to address it. The message should go out very clearly to anyone thinking of getting in a small boat: don’t do it.

Theresa Villiers: Many in Northern Ireland will want to understand the practical implications of this court case. If, as some expect, it means that Northern Ireland has become a more attractive place for someone who has arrived in Britain on a small boat, what are the Government doing to investigate, plan for and manage that, and to ensure that it does not have cost implications for the Northern Ireland Executive or local authorities in Northern Ireland?

Tom Pursglove: What I can say to my right hon. Friend, who, of course, takes a real interest in all matters Northern Ireland, is that we are operationalising the Rwanda policy on a UK-wide basis. The legal foundation for that is the Nationality and Borders Act. As I said earlier, there is no benefit to anybody who thinks that going to Northern Ireland will lead to their not being in scope for relocation to Rwanda. That is not the case. The position is clear, and we are getting on and operationalising the policy using the legal footing that is already available to us.

Sammy Wilson: The Government can make as many appeals, promises from the Dispatch Box, and agreements about safeguarding the Union as they want, but the fact remains that because of the pathetic handover of Northern Ireland to the European Union, EU law now extends to and must be applied in Northern Ireland, as the judge made clear yesterday. The result is that we have another hole in the Government’s immigration policy—a national immigration policy now  dictated by the EU. Northern Ireland will become a back door in the United Kingdom, and that will hasten the day when we have people controls, as well as goods controls, between Northern Ireland and GB. Does the Minister recognise that unless we remove the source of the problem—namely, the commitments in the withdrawal agreement—it will continue?

Tom Pursglove: There is no merit whatsoever in the suggestion that the UK would hand Northern Ireland over to the European Union. On the matter that we are debating today, the judgment changes nothing about our operational plans to send illegal migrants to Rwanda this July or about the lawfulness of our Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024. We continue to work to get regular flights off to Rwanda in the coming weeks, and nothing will distract us from that or from delivering to the timetable that I set out. We must start the flights to stop the boats. I have been consistently clear that the commitments in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement should be interpreted as they were always intended, and not expanded to cover issues such as illegal migration. We will take all steps to defend that position, including through appeal—those are the words of the Prime Minister. As I say, we are operationalising the Rwanda policy on a UK-wide basis, and we will see through the commitments that we have made.

Mark Francois: On the Windsor framework, we told you so. On the judgment itself, legally, all roads lead not to Rome but, in this case, to Strasbourg and the European convention on human rights. The convention was drafted for perfectly honourable reasons in the aftermath of the horror of the second world war, but that was over 70 years ago. It has now clearly been overtaken by events and international migration flows. Has not the time now come for a Conservative Government to include in our election manifesto a clear commitment to seeking to negotiate that convention with our European partners, and, should those negotiations fail, to leave it? If we are not prepared to walk away, they will never take us seriously.

Tom Pursglove: I refer my right hon. Friend to the Government’s stance on the legal position in relation to the Illegal Migration Act. I would also say that for illegal migrants, all roads lead to Rwanda, and for the people smugglers responsible for that evil criminality, all roads lead to prison.

Stephen Farry: I strongly welcome the logical and inevitable judgment from the High Court of Northern Ireland. If the Government want to have a national immigration policy, they must repeal the Illegal Migration Act, repeal the Safety of Rwanda Act, and have a human-rights compliant policy. Back in 1998, the Governments of the UK and Ireland made the solemn pledge to the people of Northern Ireland that the rights of everyone residing in the community would be protected. Can the Minister give a cast-iron assurance that under no circumstances will article 2 of the Windsor framework, or the Good Friday agreement, be unpicked in the pursuit of this rabbit hole of a Rwanda plan?

Tom Pursglove: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the position that I have set out in relation to the Good Friday agreement. I will not give a running commentary  about the litigation, which is, as he will appreciate, ongoing. I absolutely and definitively disagree with him on the utility or sense in repealing the various pieces of illegal migration legislation that he is so vehemently against. I respectfully disagree with him on that. That legislation is helping us to make the progress that we need to put those criminal gangs out of business and ultimately save lives in the channel. I do not think that there is anything more serious for a Government than that. We place it front and centre in the work that we are doing.

Tom Hunt: It is clear to me that Northern Ireland has just as much right as anywhere else in the UK to have a deterrent to illegal migration, so aspects of this concern me. A few weeks ago, the Irish Government were saying that they should be able to return some illegal migrants who may have gone from the UK to the Republic of Ireland. Does the Minister think that the Irish Government would be better off taking that up with France? If the French took the return of illegal migrants who have entered our country, we would probably not have this problem in the first place.

Tom Pursglove: As I said from the Dispatch Box last week, the position is very clear: we are not willing to have that relationship with the Irish Government and take the return of illegal migrants. That would need to be progressed at an EU level. We think that the European Union should take back those illegal migrants. I think that goes to the heart of the point that my hon. Friend has made.

Gregory Campbell: Thus far, the Minister has not taken the opportunity to respond to the query from my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) about why the Government declined the offer made from the DUP Benches, which would have avoided the judgment that we have heard about. Will he do so now? He has indicated that the Government plan to appeal, but if the appeal fails, what then?

Tom Pursglove: I do not think it wise to speculate on hypothetical situations. We are determined that there is a strong legislative basis, and we will defend it through the appeal. As for debates that have been and gone, the hon. Gentleman will recognise that I was not the Minister at that time, but it is fair to say that the record will speak for itself on the debates that were had.

Kevin Foster: We need only look at the situation in Dublin to see what happens when illegal migration becomes an issue and is not handled correctly, and to understand the strength of pursuing our Rwanda policy. Although that policy is being dismissed by some, it is interesting that, as I am sure the Minister has noticed, others across Europe are starting to look to it for a solution to this question. The question, “If not Rwanda, where do you want to remove people to?” has never been answered by Labour.
In the light of the judgment, can the Minister reassure me on a couple of points? First, will the UK remain the UK border in terms of migration policy, so that there is no prospect of having any form of checks on people between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which would effectively mean a border within the United  Kingdom? Secondly, will the operation of the Rwanda plan be based on, as he said, the Nationality and Borders Act and on the recently passed legislation—the one-stop shop and the child age assessments—which were vital in getting a grip on this issue? Is the plan being taken forward on that basis rather than on the basis of the Illegal Migration Act, which was the core point from this judgment?

Tom Pursglove: My hon. Friend always speaks with authority when it comes to these issues, and he has extensive experience, having been a Minister in the Home Office. I can absolutely say that we will continue to apply migration policy on a UK-wide basis; the UK border will remain that. He is right to highlight the Nationality and Borders Act, and he should be proud of the efforts that he took forward in Government to help deliver it. Labour Members consistently opposed it. In answer to his question about where Labour would send people, which I know he asked a few weeks ago, we are still none the wiser. The truth is that the basis upon which we are able to advance the policy at this stage is the Nationality and Borders Act. He can be confident in that basis. We are getting on and delivering on it.

Joanna Cherry: Of course, this judgment has UK-wide relevance because of the declarations of incompatibility under the Human Rights Act. In our reports on the Illegal Migration Act and the Rwanda policy, the Joint Committee on Human Rights has repeatedly warned that many aspects of the Government’s asylum policy breach the Human Rights Act. That was not just our view, but the weight of the expert evidence that we heard; in fact, those with legal expertise who disagreed with our findings were decidedly thin on the ground. This judgment vindicates our position that on a number of fronts, the Government’s asylum policy breaches the Human Rights Act, particularly as regards the duty to remove. As such, will the Minister confirm that the Government will respect the rule of law and not take any steps to deport anyone under the Rwanda scheme until the relevant avenues of appeal in this case are exhausted and it is clarified that such removals would be lawful?

Tom Pursglove: I know that the hon. and learned Lady is vehemently opposed to the Government’s position on tackling illegal migration. I believe that the Minister for Countering Illegal Migration, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson), will be in front of her Committee tomorrow, and I have no doubt that she will want to ask those questions of him. To go back to the thrust of her question, though, the basis upon which we are facilitating relocations to Rwanda at this stage is that of the Nationality and Borders Act, which is not relevant to the Illegal Migration Act judgment that we are dealing with today.

David Jones: We were already aware that the Northern Ireland protocol or Windsor framework—whichever one prefers to call it—had resulted in a customs border in the Irish sea. If this judgment stands, it now appears to be the case that it has also destroyed the ability of the United Kingdom Government to determine who should remain within our own borders. Does my hon. Friend not agree, therefore, that the  framework has been proven to be inimical to British sovereignty and should be renegotiated, or failing that —as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Sir John Redwood) has suggested—should be disapplied by legislation of this Parliament?

Tom Pursglove: I would not accept that characterisation. As I have confirmed for the House a number of times, we are taking forward the Rwanda partnership on the basis of the Nationality and Borders Act—that is the legal footing on which we are advancing the policy at this stage. I am confident in that legal foundation, and we will appeal this judgment, which relates very specifically to the Illegal Migration Act.

Carla Lockhart: What else are the Government not telling us about where the EU has overreach into Northern Ireland, and where people in Northern Ireland are once again in limbo between two regulatory entities? Will the Secretary of State and the Government do the right thing and stop stringing the people of Northern Ireland along by simply appealing the decision, and will the Secretary of State commit to legislate to get rid of the EU supremacy on human rights contained in article 2 of the Windsor framework?

Tom Pursglove: Article 2 of the Windsor framework ensures that there is no diminution of rights under the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. We have been consistently clear that the commitments in the Good Friday agreement should be implemented as they were always intended, not expanded to cover issues such as illegal migration. Rightly, we will take all steps to defend that position, including through our appeal.

Christopher Chope: I think we all sympathise with the Minister for having to take a line that is manifestly absurd. Why is it that the Government are not going to directly legislate to deal with this situation? The legislation is defective, and if we go to appeal and that appeal is rejected, we will have lost a lot more time. Why do we not act now to legislate and sort out this mess?

Tom Pursglove: As I think my hon. Friend will appreciate, we are currently taking legal advice in relation to this judgment. It would not be right to give a running commentary on the substance of that legal advice, and as he knows, as a Minister, I am not in a position to disclose that advice in any event. We will robustly defend our position, but the outcome that my hon. Friend wishes to see—the operationalisation of the Rwanda policy to facilitate these relocations—has its legislative basis in the Nationality and Borders Act. The good news is that he was one of the colleagues who was in the Division Lobby supporting that Act, something that I think his constituents would welcome.

Andrew Bridgen: The Government were repeatedly warned about the pitfalls of the Windsor framework, and have been repeatedly warned and advised about the deficiencies of the Rwanda legislation. What is the Minister going to do to ensure  that, as a result of the Government’s sloppy and defective drafting of legislation, the lawyers are not the only winners, as always?

Tom Pursglove: We are not going to be thwarted in our efforts to ensure that people are relocated to Rwanda, with the ultimate aim of putting out of business the evil criminal gangs responsible for that heinous trade that puts lives at risk and exploits people for their money. There is a legal basis upon which we are taking the policy forward immediately, and people are being detained for the purposes of relocation, caseworkers are working on individual cases, and arrangements are in place to facilitate the flights. That is where our focus and energies are at this present time, but we are also appealing on the issue of the Illegal Migration Act.

Richard Graham: My hon. Friend the Minister has already confirmed that the Government will appeal against the Belfast High Court judgment and that our commitment to the Belfast agreement is unwavering, so the substantive issue is the plan to process asylum seekers’ applications in Rwanda, which Opposition Front Benchers continue to say should not, could not and will not work. Will my hon. Friend confirm that not only are they wrong on all three of those points, but events in Ireland have shown how effective a deterrent this policy is going to prove? Italy, France, Denmark and—I think—the political party of the EU President have already said that it sets a very interesting precedent, one that they will be looking to pursue themselves.

Tom Pursglove: Opposition Front Benchers are invariably wrong when it comes to these issues. My hon. Friend is right to touch on the fact that although back in 2022 we were at the forefront in announcing the Rwanda partnership, others are now following us. As a Government, we recognise and have consistently said that this is a novel approach to tackling the issue, but such challenges require novel solutions, and it is right that we look at novel ways of tackling these migratory flows that are organised and facilitated by evil criminality—the Home Secretary is leading that effort internationally, as well. My hon. Friend’s point is becoming ever more relevant; in fact, only this morning, I saw additional reports of other countries exploring these sorts of arrangements.

Jim Shannon: Belfast City Council has the second highest number of asylum seekers in all of the United Kingdom; that indicates how important this issue is for us in Northern Ireland. Can the Minister confirm that there is still freedom of movement within the United Kingdom and that subsequently, under the policy of dispersal, we will be able to move any asylum seekers to the GB mainland to be directed, determined and dealt with as this Government see fit? Can he also confirm that this court judgment will not preclude Northern Ireland from holding its constitutional and legal position within the United Kingdom until consent given through a border poll determines otherwise, which is the very foundation of the Good Friday agreement?

Tom Pursglove: There are various technical aspects bound up in that question. If I may, I will take that series of points away and provide the hon. Gentleman with a written response, but what I can say in top-line terms is that when it comes to the application of the Rwanda policy, we are delivering it on a UK-wide basis.

Mike Penning: I have sat and listened to all the questions from across the House, so as I am asking the last one, can I say to the Minister that my constituents and I are very worried about immigration, and that if the Rwanda policy that this House has decided to go ahead with works, that should happen and it should be a deterrent? However, what is obvious across the House today is that there is a concern about the Union. This country is about a union of countries together, so I ask the Minister to make sure that all Government Departments understand the concern of colleagues from Northern Ireland, and from across the House, to protect the Union at all costs.

Tom Pursglove: This Government will always, always uphold the Union both in letter and in spirit. My right hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of this issue to his constituents in Hemel Hempstead and the importance of tackling illegal migration head-on. He can be absolutely assured that Home Office Ministers take our responsibilities to the Union incredibly seriously. The fact that I am joined on the Front Bench by Northern Ireland Office colleagues for this urgent question is very welcome. It provides an opportunity to really demonstrate the fact that we do work as one Government on this issue. It is incumbent on all Ministers to uphold the Union and its importance to our great country in every sense.

Rosie Winterton: I thank the Minister for answering the urgent question.

International Health Regulations

Danny Kruger: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care if she will make a statement on the ongoing negotiations on the World Health Organisation pandemic agreement and amendments to the international health regulations ahead of any votes at the World Health Assembly that starts next week.

Andrew Stephenson: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this urgent question, and I am grateful for the opportunity to update the House. I want to start by making three promises. First, the Government will only accept the accord and targeted amendments to the international health regulations if they are firmly in the United Kingdom’s national interest, and no text has yet been agreed. We will only accept the accord and amendments by the World Health Assembly and adopt them if it is firmly in the UK’s national interest to do so. Secondly, this Government will only sign up to measures that respect our national sovereignty. Thirdly, under no circumstances will we allow the WHO to have the power to mandate lockdowns. That would be unthinkable and has never been proposed. Protecting our sovereignty is a British red line.
Let me now dispel three myths about the negotiations. First, there is the myth that the negotiations are being led by the WHO. They are not being led by the WHO; they are entirely led by member states. Secondly, there is the idea that we would give away a fifth of our vaccines in the next pandemic. That is simply not true. Of course, we are a generous country and companies may make their own choices to donate vaccines, but that would be and should be entirely their decision. Countries are discussing a voluntary mechanism to which UK businesses could sign up, if they wish, to share vaccines in return for information they may need to develop their products.
The third point is about transparency. This is a point I take extremely seriously, as one who campaigned so hard for this Parliament’s sovereignty. It is not common practice for the Government to give an update on live negotiations, but I met some interested parliamentarians last week to discuss their concerns. I also had the pleasure of leading a Westminster Hall debate in December on these negotiations, which was attended by my hon. Friend and many others, and I will continue to meet him and other concerned parliamentarians as we act in the national interest. Effective agreements can help us to deliver smarter surveillance, swifter pathogen and data sharing, and faster development of pandemic vaccines, tests and treatments that would save lives and protect people both in the UK and around the world.

Danny Kruger: Can I say how much I appreciate the commitments that the Minister has just made? I want to acknowledge the good work that he and indeed his predecessors have been doing in Government ahead of the World Health Assembly that meets next week. I am very pleased to hear the commitments he has just made.
My concern is not with the Government’s position, but with the WHO itself. I appreciate the Minister’s point that member states are leading on these proposals,  which is worrying in itself, but we know what the real agenda of the WHO is from the drafts that have been submitted in recent months. It wants to have binding powers over national Governments to introduce all sorts of restrictive measures on our citizens; it wants to be able to direct the health budgets of member states; and it wants to introduce global digital health passports and other measures.
The WHO is an organisation that aspires, in words that are still in the draft treaty, to be
“the directing and coordinating authority on international health work, including on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response”.
I appreciate that no text has yet been agreed, which is why it is important that we have a debate, but the proposals in the latest draft published last month are concerning enough. They require national Governments to agree to a whole series of commitments, which will be binding under international law if the UK signs up to them. These cover surveillance of the health of the population, commitments on funding both in the UK and abroad, emergency authorisation of new vaccines or speeded up authorisation processes, giving some vaccines to the WHO to distribute, potentially authorising national Governments to introduce the compulsory vaccination of travellers, and giving very wide discretion to the director general of the WHO to act on his own initiative.
The Government still have the opportunity to oppose the treaty and the regulations as they are currently drafted, and I appreciate that we are waiting to see the final text in the coming days, but can I ask the Minister to clarify very explicitly from the Dispatch Box what the Government’s red lines are? I heard what he said, but could he go a little further on the detail of what he means? Will the Government oppose any text that binds this or a future Government in how they respond to health threats? Finally and crucially, will the Government comply with the CRaG—Constitutional Reform and Governance Act—requirement to put the treaty to a ratification vote in Parliament?

Andrew Stephenson: I thank my hon. Friend for the constructive way in which he and other parliamentarians have engaged with this subject matter and the challenges it presents. As I said in my opening remarks, no text has yet been agreed. I set out some of our negotiating red lines, and I am happy to confirm from the Dispatch Box that the current text is not acceptable to us. Therefore, unless the current text is changed and refined, we will not be signing up to it.
My hon. Friend asks how the treaty will be ratified if we reach a position to which the UK Government could agree. The UK treaty-making process means that the accord is of course negotiated and agreed by the Government. As he will know, Parliament plays an important part in scrutinising treaties under the CRaG process and determining how international obligations should be reflected domestically. However, it is important to remember that, because the exact form of the accord has not yet been agreed, the parliamentary adoption process will depend on under which article of the WHO constitution the accord is adopted.

Rosie Winterton: I call the shadow Minister.

Andrew Gwynne: This country has a role and a responsibility in protecting global health. It is a part we played during the covid pandemic. British science stood tall on the world stage, and our country donated 84 million vaccine doses to help vaccinate the world. We learned from the omicron variant that, when it comes to global pandemics, none of us is safe until all of us are safe. We also benefited from researchers around the world sharing early knowledge about covid-19, collaboration that was crucial in protecting British people and ultimately in developing the vaccine. However, there is a clear principle when it comes to national security. It is the same one we follow when we get on to an aeroplane: we apply our own oxygen mask before we help others apply theirs. The Minister says the draft text is not acceptable, and I want to be clear that a Labour Government will not sign anything that would leave our population unprotected in the face of a novel disease.
We are debating a treaty that is still being negotiated by member states, and none of us knows the final content or wording, so can the Minister reconfirm for the House that the Government will not sign up to anything that would compromise the UK’s ability to take domestic decisions on national public health measures? Has he consulted the UK’s life sciences sector ahead of these negotiations, and what conversations has he had with international counterparts and our allies about this treaty and our joint pandemic preparedness? As we work with colleagues around the world to bolster our efforts to tackle novel threats, it is vital that we get the balance right between sharing knowledge and protecting intellectual property, so can he set out his approach to any requirements for time-limited waivers of intellectual property related to vaccines and therapeutics in the event of a global disease outbreak? Finally, it is vital that we are led by science and evidence when tackling the threat of global disease epidemics, so can the Minister tell us what his Department is doing to tackle misinformation about pandemics and vaccines?

Andrew Stephenson: I thank the shadow Minister for his remarks. I confirm that we are firmly fighting in Britain’s interests for an accord and strengthened international health regulations that fully respect national sovereignty but can save lives and protect people both in the UK and around the world. They have to fully respect national sovereignty, and that is at the heart of our negotiating position. It will therefore always be up to nation states to decide what is implemented within their own borders.
Just to answer a couple of the hon. Gentleman’s specific points, yes, I have met representatives of the life sciences sector to discuss this and some of the specific proposals—the last meeting we had was last week. With regard to dealing with international counterparts, I will be attending the World Health Assembly in Geneva myself.
My final point is that the hon. Gentleman is right to pay tribute to what this country did globally during the pandemic. Of course, in 2021 we used the G7 presidency to mobilise G7 countries to donate surplus vaccines, and by May 2022 the G7 had donated 1.18 billion doses against the target of 870 million. The UK alone donated over 80 million doses, benefiting 40 countries.

Liam Fox: We all want better co-ordination in the face of any future pandemic risk, but it is also clear that the WHO wants supranational powers. Will my right hon. Friend guarantee that the UK Government will not accept any obligation that requires the UK to legislate to implement any element of the WHO treaty into UK law?

Andrew Stephenson: At the moment we do not envisage any proposal that would require changes to domestic law, and it is highly unlikely that any proposals will come forward in that shape or form. I have some sympathy with what my right hon. Friend says: most organisations such as the WHO will always look to expand their remit, and look to gain more power in order to co-ordinate things. But these negotiations are being led by member states and sovereignty is a key part of the negotiating position of the vast majority of the countries involved. It is not just the UK arguing for this; countries around the world are arguing that this needs to be a high-level agreement that helps co-ordination and information-sharing but in no way ties countries’ hands in how we respond domestically to any future pandemic.

Kirsty Blackman: We cannot have a repeat of what the WHO called the catastrophic failure of the international community to ensure that covid-19 was fought everywhere with all of our abilities. It will require give and take, with give on the part of OECD countries commensurate with our comparative economic strength and population health. Although there may be disagreements across the House, I think we all agree that pandemics should be fought on an international basis and that other countries should be assisted, where we have the strength and ability to do that. Despite that level of agreement, there has been a persistent barrage of misinformation and disinformation, not least hitting our own inboxes. As negotiations on this proceed, what steps will the UK Government be taking to ensure that the public understand what the treaty will do and to tackle and robustly rebut the misinformation and disinformation that is being spread, particularly about this treaty?

Andrew Stephenson: The Scottish National party spokeswoman makes a very important point. There has been a lot of misinformation and disinformation, but that is in part the result of the transparency on all the amendments being published on the WHO website, for example, as well as various other information, which has allowed people to think that that is suddenly the kind of text that would be agreed. We need to be clear that no text whatsoever has been agreed; the negotiations continue. I think most people in this House, and hopefully outside, would recognise that the working draft text most recently published on the WHO website is a significant improvement on the initial drafts. I think we all share an ambition that we will get to a text that can be agreed, but it has to put national interests and national sovereignty at its heart. I will therefore do my best to ensure that the House is kept updated as further iterations of the text emerge—the latest version was published on the WHO website on 17 April.

Will Quince: As the Health Minister who represented the UK at last year’s World Health Assembly and the United Nations General Assembly,  I stood at that Dispatch Box and confirmed that we would not sign up to any IHR amendment or any other instrument that would compromise the UK’s ability to make domestic decisions on national measures concerning public health. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that His Majesty’s Government’s position on this remains unchanged and resolute?

Andrew Stephenson: I pay tribute to my predecessor for the work he did. Let me reiterate that the UK Government have made it clear that we will not sign up to any accord or any changes in the international health regulations that would cede sovereignty to the WHO in making domestic decisions on national measures concerning public health, such as domestic immunisation programmes or lockdowns.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Can the Minister confirm that the WHO was slow to react to SARS—severe acute respiratory syndrome—was slow to react to the Ebola crisis, was slow to react to covid-19, and steadfastly refused to criticise in any way the Chinese regime throughout that period? That being the case, will he confirm again from the Dispatch Box that no outside organisation will ever be able to take any decision to do with the internal health and wellbeing of citizens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

Andrew Stephenson: One of the reasons why the WHO has in the past been slow to respond, and why it might be slow in future, is that it is a member state-led organisation governed by the World Health Assembly, which comprises 194 member states operating under the WHO constitution. Any decisions made by the WHO have to be agreed by all member states, including the UK, beforehand, and that does somewhat tie its hands. However, we and many like-minded countries believe that all these decisions are best made domestically depending on the domestic situation. The domestic situation in the UK will be radically different in any future pandemic from the domestic situation in other countries around the world. We have to work collaboratively on things like the sharing of data, but there are many other areas where it is 100 % right that decisions are made in this country by our Government.

Simon Clarke: I welcome confirmation from my right hon. Friend that the Government do not consider the current drafting of the proposed treaty to be acceptable; it is good to have that on the record. On a principles-led basis, I do not believe it is in the UK’s national interest to accede to this. Anything that compromises our ability to make sovereign choices is profoundly unwelcome. Can the Minister give a commitment that, regardless of the technicalities of the precise form that any treaty may finally emerge in, if the UK does decide to accede to this treaty, we will have a vote in this House? We can see, certainly on this side of the House—there is no presence on the Labour Benches—that there are real reservations about what this will mean in practice for our ability to make the right choices for our people.

Andrew Stephenson: I appreciate the point that my right hon. Friend makes. As I said in answer to an earlier question, because we do not know the exact form that the accord will take, at the moment it is very hard to say what the parliamentary procedure that  flows out of it will be, but I certainly will provide any opportunity I can to facilitate as much debate as possible. He and I agree on many things, but here I would just say that, having looked at the detail, I genuinely believe that agreeing a meaningful accord is firmly in the UK’s national interest.
This accord is an opportunity to enhance UK health, economic and national security. An effective accord will improve disease surveillance and prevention by making sure that globally we have the information we need to raise the alarm early. It strengthens research and development to help stop pandemics in their tracks and enables a better co-ordinated global response to pandemics, including getting vaccines, treatments and tests rapidly to where they are needed most.
I genuinely believe that there is a window of opportunity here to get an accord that is in the UK’s national interest. We are not there yet—the current text is unacceptable—but we will keep negotiating, because I believe there is a window of opportunity here to agree something that is genuinely in the UK’s national interest. But if we cannot agree that, we will not sign it.

Jonathan Edwards: Public health is devolved in the context of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Therefore, how often does the Minister engage with the devolved Governments on the UK Government’s negotiating positions in relation to these matters?

Andrew Stephenson: As the hon. Gentleman will know, international treaties are a matter for the UK Government, and therefore this is being negotiated by the UK Government. I was appointed as a Minister in the Department of Health back in November, but I am happy to reassure him that I do not see myself as purely the Minister for Health in England—I visited Wales very early on to meet some of the outstanding life sciences companies there, which are developing products that will benefit patients across the entire UK; I visited Northern Ireland to see some of the great universities and outstanding businesses there; and I also visited Scotland to meet Michael Matheson, the then Scottish Health Secretary, and also the University of Edinburgh and various other outstanding universities and businesses. So I very much see the Union, and the impact that everything has on the whole United Kingdom, as being central to these negotiations.

Bill Cash: May I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) on securing this urgent question? I also congratulate those on the Government Benches—I note that there is no one on the Opposition Benches, apart from the shadow Minister—for addressing the question of whether any meaningful accord is possible. Supranationality has to be out, as I have said on countless occasions, when it is not in our national interest. Sovereignty has to prevail. I remind the Minister of the regulation brought in by the EU at the time of covid, which had to be abandoned because we put our foot down and said that we would not accept its restrictions on our ability to produce the vaccine. That is a good example. Will he please follow it and make sure we do not have any weasel words?

Andrew Stephenson: I thank my hon. Friend for his passionate and pertinent point. Throughout the negotiations the UK has made it clear—and we will continue to do so—that we will not sign up to any accord that fails to meet our global health and UK health security priorities. Likewise, the UK would not sign up to an accord that cedes sovereignty to the WHO over domestic decisions on national measures concerning public health, such as immunisation programmes or lockdowns. Any necessary or appropriate changes to domestic legislation or new domestic legislation would be made through the usual parliamentary process. However, because we do not yet know the exact details of the accord, I cannot be any clearer on how exactly Parliament will get to scrutinise the accord, if we get to an agreement.

Sammy Wilson: The treaty is not just about data sharing and information gathering; it is also about setting up a system of pandemic management under the leadership of the WHO. It has a poor history of management and decision making. Can the Minister give us an assurance that he will not accept any surrendering of UK powers to an international body that can interfere with decisions that will affect the lives of ordinary people here in the United Kingdom? I listened to his response about devolved Governments, and it seems there has not been much discussion with the devolved Administrations. He will not even guarantee a vote in this House on such an important issue. Can he guarantee that we will not undemocratically hand over democratic control to a non-democratic body?

Andrew Stephenson: We will not be handing over any kind of control over what we do domestically; national sovereignty is a clear red line, as I made clear in my opening remarks. It is important to recognise that there are challenges with these things, which are being negotiated within the existing international health regulations. The director general of the World Health Organisation  already has the ability to declare a public health  event of international concern and issue temporary recommendations that provide non-binding guidance to member states. We believe that we need to stay in a situation where the World Health Organisation has an important convening role internationally to discuss issues, but the domestic response to any future pandemic is for domestic Governments to make. Anything that impinges on UK national sovereignty will therefore be unacceptable to us.

Suella Braverman: I want to put on the record my thanks to the Minister for his hard work and for taking the time last week to meet me and colleagues to discuss the terms of this treaty. He will know that I am profoundly sceptical about the World Health Organisation’s ability to manage a global pandemic, in the light of serious errors of judgment, poor leadership and, I am afraid, well-chronicled conflicts of interest that have subsequently emerged. Of course we can help poorer countries and collaborate with other nations, but under no circumstances must we surrender our sovereignty or sign up to a lockdown charter. I hear what he says about how the text currently on the table does not bind our hands, but he will know, as many of us do, that in the heat of an emergency during a real pandemic, irresistible pressure will mount on a Government to make decisions that may well turn out to be wholly harmful, as we found, and the wrong decisions for the  good of the country. Will he agree that, fundamentally, to coin a phrase, no pandemic treaty is better than a bad pandemic treaty?

Andrew Stephenson: I 100% agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that no treaty is better than a bad treaty. However, if we scroll back to why this process was originally started, it was the former Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip who led the international calls for this accord. The reason behind it is that we believe that commitments on stronger international collaboration and co-operation on global health are crucial to securing the UK’s health and economic security. However, domestic decisions still have to be left to sovereign nation states to take the right decisions for their countries. I think there is a lot of agreement between my right hon. and learned Friend and me, and I thank her once again for engaging in such constructive fashion and for meeting me to express her and other parliamentarians’ views.

Stephen Farry: I concur that any new treaty has to be right for the UK. Will the Minister reflect on the meaning of the word “pandemic”, which suggests an element of international spread of disease or a global problem? For the sake of balance in this urgent question, will he emphasise the importance of the UK working collaboratively on an intergovernmental basis with others in how they react to pandemics with restrictions on travel and global vaccine equity? As long as the world is safe, the UK is also safe.

Andrew Stephenson: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I talked about the leadership shown by the UK Government when we had the G7 presidency back in 2021. In addition to the UK supplying vaccines around the world, as of 2022, an estimated 2.7 million covid-19 deaths had been prevented due to the COVAX-supported vaccination programmes in different countries around the world. We need to work internationally. Sharing data can head off future pandemics, and a good accord would deliver the data sharing and collaboration that can prevent future health emergencies, rather than tie the hands of domestic Governments in responding appropriately to such emergencies.

Mike Penning: May I say on behalf of the volunteers and others in the vaccination centres around the country during the pandemic, which I had the honour of working in, that the key is that vaccines are available to us before we give them to anyone else in the world? I am listening to what the Minister is saying, but does he agree that collaboration does not mean compulsion in any way or form?

Andrew Stephenson: As a volunteer vaccinator during the pandemic, I 100% agree with my right hon. Friend. We have to look after our own people—our own citizens; the people we are elected to represent—first. We are investing heavily in the British life sciences sector to ensure that it is even more prepared for any future pandemic. We are ensuring that we have more domestic manufacturing capability, so that we can have more vaccines ourselves without being reliant on other countries. However, at the point where a new pandemic is emerging in a part of a world far from our shores, we still need to ensure that the data—particularly the pathogen data—is shared early, so that world-beating British companies,  whether the tiny life sciences start-ups or the big pharmaceutical companies, can use it to produce the drugs that will hopefully ensure that it does not become a full-blown pandemic and does not cost as many lives as the last one.

Andrew Bridgen: I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) on his timing of this important urgent question. Repeatedly during this session, the Minister has stated that we do not really know what shape the pandemic agreement, accord or treaty will take. Under paragraph 2 of article 55 of the international health regulations, all member states must have a full draft of the amendments to treaties to be voted on four months in advance. Despite the fact that the WHO is breaking its own rules, it is insisting on moving forward with the votes in Geneva on 27 May on the pandemic treaty and the amendments to the international health regulations. Will the Minister join me and many others in calling for a deferment of those votes until this House and others around the world have had a chance to examine these important details?

Andrew Stephenson: No, because there is no text that has been agreed. This has been evolving: we have seen new amendments and new, revised drafts. The latest negotiations on the accord took place on 29 April to 10 May and the next round of negotiations will take place on 16 and 17 May and continue on 20 to 25 May, leading up to the World Health Assembly meeting taking place in Geneva on 27 May to 1 June. There has been a lot of progress in getting a text that is more agreeable to a majority of member states, but we are still some way off getting to a text that can be agreed. We are hoping for significant changes in the coming days, and I will do my best to keep the House updated.

Richard Drax: May I firmly tell the Minister that the road to hell is paved with good intentions? I do not trust bureaucracies, and I certainly do not trust this one. Judging by the way in which it behaved last time, with its instinct to lock us all down—we have seen huge damage from that to every part of our national infrastructure—I suspect that the tendency will be to do the same again, to our detriment. Will the Minister reassure me—he has done so already, but I want to hear it again—that he will, in effect, not sign anything? We do not need to sign something to collaborate with other nations for their good as well as for the good of our own country.

Andrew Stephenson: I happily reassure my hon. Friend that national sovereignty comes first. We will continue to do everything that we can to ensure that we get an accord that is agreeable, but if the accord would undermine our sovereignty and our ability to act domestically in any way, we will simply not sign it.

Jim Shannon: I have been contacted by a large number of constituents who have voiced grave concerns about the powers and rights requested and required by this unelected body. While we may support some of the work carried out to help developing countries, I will not sign away the sovereignty of this nation. Our participation in the WHO should not come with a prerequisite of signing up to these demands. Further, if that is the case, we should no longer be a participating member of the WHO.

Andrew Stephenson: Just to reiterate my point, the Government will only accept the accord and targeted amendments to the international health regulations if they are firmly in the United Kingdom’s national interest, and no text has yet been agreed. We continue the negotiations, and I will do my best to keep right hon. and hon. Members as informed as I can without providing a running commentary on the negotiations, but I genuinely believe that we can get to a position where there is an accord that is in the UK national interest.

John Redwood: Will the Minister then publish the amendments that the Government are seeking? He says, rightly, that he needs a very different treaty from the one that we see on offer. He needs to persuade other nations, so he should be making a public case; we would then not be so suspicious. There must be no new legal requirement imposed on the United Kingdom.

Andrew Stephenson: We do not envisage any new legal requirements being imposed on the United Kingdom, and any changes to our domestic ability to react to any future pandemic would be unacceptable and cross one of our red lines. In this urgent question and in the Westminster Hall debate, which I know my right hon. Friend also participated in, I was as clear as I could be on the UK’s red lines in these negotiations. We have been up front with both Parliament and our international partners in saying that the current text is not agreeable to us, and we are seeking significant changes if we are to reach an accord that will be signed by the United Kingdom.

Mark Francois: I, too, participated in that Westminster Hall debate. For the record, this urgent question has been running for well over half an hour, during which not a single Labour Back Bencher has been present in the Chamber, let alone asked a question, even though we are discussing, in effect, the medical sovereignty of the United Kingdom.
As there are a lot of Conservatives in the Chamber, may I say to the Minister that we would probably be better not signing this treaty at all? That is not least because many of us have concerns about malign influences on the WHO. If we were to sign it, although I would rather that we did not, will the Minister give us a cast-iron commitment that we will have a vote—dare I say, a meaningful vote—on it in this House before it comes into force?

Andrew Stephenson: I thank my right hon. Friend for his powerful point, which I think once again underlines that you can only trust the Conservatives with the NHS. As I have said in answer to a couple of questions, unfortunately, because we do not know the form that the treaty will take, it is hard to set out the parliamentary process for its adoption. There are different parliamentary processes depending on the form that it takes. I make the personal commitment to him that I will do everything that I can to engage the House, but at this point I  cannot specify the procedure and processes that  would be followed in the House or whether there would be a vote.

Philip Hollobone: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) for securing the urgent question and Mr Speaker for granting it.
The World Health Organisation is a failing, mega-expensive, unelected, unaccountable supranational body, which is increasingly under the influence of the global elite, funded by a small number of non-state actors, and China is a malign influence over it. Surely the initial drafts of this treaty must have set alarm bells ringing even in Whitehall at this attempted power grab. May I urge the Minister not to sign the treaty? We can have enhanced co-operation and collaboration to counter future pandemics without legally binding commitments.

Andrew Stephenson: I would argue that WHO membership gives the UK a seat at the table in global health discussions, allowing us to amplify UK priorities at an international level. There are 194 member states. If we can agree a high-level treaty that does not impinge on our national sovereignty via the negotiation between the 194 member states, I think that will be a good outcome, and a better outcome than trying to negotiate individual agreements with all 194 member states.

Tom Hunt: I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) that it is hardly surprising that a debate that largely hinges on national sovereignty is of little interest to the Labour party.
The principle of national democracy is incredibly important to me, many of my constituents and other people in this place. I am absolutely pro-collaboration, but that needs to be done through the national principle, and nothing must be done that undermines the national principle. This debate keeps on returning—we thought that it would end with Brexit, but it did not; it is now going on with the European convention on human rights and the WHO. Will the Minister confirm that, yes, we are pro-collaboration and co-operation, but that when it comes to national sovereignty we should always oppose supranationalism and the worst excesses of globalism?

Andrew Stephenson: The UK Government have been clear that we will not sign up to an accord or any international health regulation amendments that would cede sovereignty to the WHO in making domestic decisions on national measures concerning public health, such as domestic immunisation programmes or lockdowns. Respecting national sovereignty rights is a distinct principle in the current draft of the accord, and respecting the sovereign rights of states to adopt, legislate and implement legislation within their jurisdictions remains a distinct principle in the drafted amendments to the IHR. I genuinely believe that there is a window of opportunity to negotiate an accord that is in the UK national interest as well as in the global interest.

Rosie Winterton: I thank the Minister for answering the urgent question.

Point of Order

Jamie Stone: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure that you and Members across the House will share my disappointment that the Secretary of State made a great announcement about the construction of six new warships at Lancaster House to a group of journalists, rather than in this place. All our constituents would have liked MPs to have had the opportunity to question the Secretary of State about that announcement. What advice do you have for me, Madam Deputy Speaker, to ensure proper scrutiny of this sort of decision, important as it is to our national security?

Rosie Winterton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for giving me notice of it. Mr Speaker and I have not had any indication that Ministers intend to come to the House to make a statement about this matter, but I note that the “Ministerial Code” says:
“When Parliament is in session, the most important announcements of Government policy should be made in the first instance, in Parliament.”
I know that Mr Speaker is keen that that should be implemented. I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have made a note of the points raised and will report back.

Bathing Waters (Monitoring and Reporting)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Selaine Saxby: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about monitoring and reporting of water quality in bathing water sites in coastal areas; and for connected purposes.
I am proud to represent some of the finest and cleanest beaches in the world. North Devon is home to the UK’s only world surf reserve, and the only cold water surf reserve in the world. I must declare an interest as I surf—badly—and was in last weekend. I am proud of this Government’s work to take the monitoring of storm overflows from just 6% in 2010 to 100% last year. However, this data is abused along our coastlines and often scares people out of the water. We know that something comes out of a pipe, but we have no idea what it contains.
The Bill seeks to expedite the testing of what is in an overflow pipe, and to define what is and what is not raw sewage. Despite asking numerous questions of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, I am still unable to explain to anyone how an overflow pipe that contains at least 95% rainwater can still be defined as raw sewage. Legal definitions online are clear that raw sewage should consist primarily of human faeces and water. It is not the water where the bacteria hang out—clearly, the more water, the more diluted. My Bill relates to bathing waters at coastal sites, because clearly there is a major difference in the impact of an overflow event into something as environmentally sensitive and slow-moving as a chalk stream, compared with the massive tides, huge volume and fast-moving seawater of the Atlantic ocean. Saltwater itself can kill some bacteria.
We have seen a surge in year-round activity along our coasts, thanks to improved wetsuits and a growing number of hardy folk wild swimming. However, our bathing water season, which determines when our coastal waters are tested, runs only from May to September, meaning that when water-based tourism is still going strong in Devon there is no testing along our coasts. The bathing season data gives vital historical information about water quality. Although I warmly welcome DEFRA’s announcement yesterday that it plans to consult on  a series of potential reforms, it will not resolve the misinformation and lack of immediate information after a storm overflow event.
This winter, tests took place to see if the season could be extended, but it is hard to replicate the Environment Agency’s testing regime with a test tube at the testing site just off the beach, during winter storms with 12-foot waves. Throughout the winter, bathers have to try to work out what is going on from the average of the previous summer’s data, along with details of the last storm overflow, despite having no information about what came out the pipe. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport advises that the Environment Agency provides the gold standard for whether bathing water is clean enough for sporting activities, despite the lack of data for half the year. One group of year-round bathers  explained to me that they peer into the water and decide if they think it is safe to go in. Surely, we can do better than that.
Based on the experience of the Environment Agency, one would think it was possible to determine when it was safe to go back into the water after an overflow event. The EA recommends waiting one full tidal rotation before going back into the water after an overflow has run. However, Surfers Against Sewage advises 48 hours, because of viruses and World Health Organisation data, but clearly the issue is bacteria in a storm overflow.
Surfers Against Sewage did such great work when established 40 years ago to make water companies clean up their act along the coast, which has seen an increase in the number of bathing waters with an excellent rating. However, its current campaigning seems to be destroying the hard-won reputation of those bathing waters. Last winter, Devon and Cornwall were under a permanent sewage watch according to Surfers Against Sewage, yet South West Water helped event organisers along the coast to ensure that Christmas and new year swims went ahead as far as possible.
We would all like no overflows to run, but it rains a lot in the south-west of England, and climate change has caused a big increase in the number of big storms and torrential rain. With the best will in the world, the water companies will not stop it raining, and that rain has to go somewhere. Sporadic testing on our beaches shows that, often, the streams running on to the beaches are far more polluted than the water coming out the storm overflows. We need to follow the science and recognise that in constituencies such as mine, less than 1% of the water pollution we deal with is related to human sewage.
There is work to do, but stopping storm overflows is not the be-all and end-all to improving the quality of our bathing water. Even Surfers Against Sewage recognises that there have been improvements, although it does not like my sharing the email it sent me last year, which stated:
“With regards to the beaches in your constituency, we totally agree that huge improvements have been made to water quality there and in many places around the country. And the very last thing we want to do is scare people off from getting in the water.”
Anyone can set up an app and advise whether the water quality is safe, but no one knows whether the water has been tested. Many regular users of our bathing waters recognise that when it rains, even if there is no storm overflow, the water is not as clean as when it has not. We need accurate and up-to-date data on the water quality in its entirety, not just when an overflow has run.
There are some awful examples of when the system does not work. When the Ashford sewage treatment works on the Taw broke down earlier this year, the EA advised closing four beaches, via the councils. However, even though Surfers Against Sewage is normally the first to rush to tell people that there is raw sewage on the beach when there is not, it did not raise a flag at all because it does not use that data. Surf lessons continued because the messages from councils did not reach the beaches, and proper untreated sewage was discharged for six hours. It was not classed as a storm overflow on a bathing water beach, so nobody paid any attention.
The Bill would ensure some form of test data from coastal bathing waters all year round. It would also require water companies to test what is coming out of their storm overflows when they run, and that the term “raw sewage” be used only when the concentration of bacteria warrants it. New definitions would be determined to accurately reflect what is coming out a pipe, and the seawater would be tested after overflow events to accurately determine how long it takes for the pollution in a storm overflow to dissipate, as this varies widely depending  on tidal conditions, and by beach and overflow event. Over time, good data banks would be established and better guidance would be issued than the current blanket guidance. Any organisation that fails to follow the guidance would not have access to the data.
Our beachgoers deserve better data. My own surf school said that if we listened to Surfers Against Sewage, we would never go surfing. Despite being in the water every day, not one of its instructors has ever been unwell. We need all-year-round data, instant testing after incidents and consistent advice in a consumer-friendly format. North Devon’s beaches are some of the cleanest in the world. As the one-woman tourist board for North Devon, I urge hon. Members to come down and to swim, surf, sail and enjoy the beautiful coastline. As a mathematician, I know that we need better data. Reducing storm overflows is vital, and this Government are demanding that of water companies. However, just knowing that a pipe has discharged when it has been raining is not good enough. We must get better bathing water data available all year round.
Question put and agreed to.
That Caroline Ansell, Mrs Flick Drummond, Anna Firth, Kevin Foster, Sir Liam Fox, Sir Robert Goodwill, Sally-Ann Hart, Simon Jupp, Cherilyn Mackrory, Matt Warman and Selaine Saxby present the Bill.
Selaine Saxby accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 14 June, and to be printed (Bill 217).

Terms and Conditions of Employment

Kevin Hollinrake: I beg to move,
That the draft Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (Amendment of Schedule A2) Order 2024, which was laid before this House on 22 April, be approved.
The draft order will increase the deterrent effect of the code of practice on dismissal and re-engagement, which I will refer to as “the code” for the remainder of this debate. The Government have been clear that threats of dismissal and re-engagement should not be used as a negotiation tactic by employers. When the covid-19 pandemic led to cases of dismissal and re-engagement, the Government asked ACAS to conduct an evidence-gathering exercise to help us better understand this issue. The report was published in June 2021. The Government then asked ACAS to produce new guidance to ensure that employers are clear on their responsibilities when considering making changes to employment contracts. The guidance was published in November 2021. ACAS has also published guidance for employees.
The Government then went further to address the use of dismissal and re-engagement by bringing forward a draft code, aiming to ensure that the practice is only ever used as a last resort, and that employees are properly consulted and treated fairly. The code seeks to ensure that where an employer wants to make changes to employees’ terms and conditions, the employer engages in meaningful consultation with a view to reaching agreement with employees or their representatives in good faith.

Gavin Newlands: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. We discussed this issue upstairs in Committee. Can he confirm whether the motion, which puts the code into practice, would stop Willie Walsh from threatening to fire and rehire 10,000 air stewards, air stewardesses and others at British Airways, or the workers at British Gas—yes or no?

Kevin Hollinrake: It is wrong to talk about individual cases, because they are all different, with different circumstances. The order is about a financial deterrent against those kinds of actions. Different sanctions are available for the mistreatment of employees, such as civil or criminal investigation by the Insolvency Service. Different measures can be taken forward where rules are not complied with.

Gavin Newlands: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. He talked about the extra 25% putting off businesses and employers from going down that route. If it will save businesses a heck of a lot more money than the alternative, surely they will go down the same route. They will potentially price in the 25% if it will save them more money in the long run, particularly in a British Airways situation where it was dealing with legacy contracts and trying to save substantial amounts of money. Surely this is not enough of a disincentive.

Kevin Hollinrake: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. Most employers treat their employees with dignity and respect. That is what we expect and  what we see in the vast majority of cases. An economic environment in which we have virtually full employment means a competitive market for employees. That is the best protection against the kind of approach that some employers take and which we are trying mitigate. We believe the measures strike a fair balance. We believe there are situations where dismissal and re-engagement is appropriate—I can expand on that if he would like me to—so it is about trying to strike a balance, and we think we have struck that balance.

Christine Jardine: I thank the Minister for giving way on that point. Does he appreciate that many of us think the code looks very optimistic, presuming a best-case scenario in human behaviour and industrial relations, and that the result is really toothless in dealing with companies that might operate outwith the norm?

Kevin Hollinrake: I do not think so. There is a financial deterrent to going down a route that is not appropriate, and to not following the code. As I say, we are striking a balance. There are situations in which, as a last resort, businesses need to do something more drastic; for example, a business might be in peril and unable to survive without making the kind of changes we are discussing, and such cases have come before tribunals. If the question is whether it is right that everybody shares a small burden—say, a reduction in salary—one person cannot hold out against that, and prevent a restructuring that is in the interests of the many, rather than the few. The provisions have been used in the past to save businesses and therefore jobs. That is what we are trying to protect, while also protecting against a rogue employer using such opportunities irresponsibly and unfairly.
The code will apply to all employers, regardless of size. We expect all employers in relevant scenarios to adhere to it. As I said, employment tribunals will have the power to apply an uplift of up to 25% of an employee’s compensation if an employer unreasonably fails to comply with a code that applies.
In accordance with the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, the Secretary of State consulted ACAS on a draft statutory code before publishing it. Between January and April 2023, the Government publicly consulted on a draft code, enabling trade unions, employers and other interested parties to contribute their views. Careful consideration was given to those views, and as a result, changes were made to the draft code. The Government are very grateful to all respondents to the consultation for their considered and helpful responses. An updated draft code was laid before Parliament on 19 February, and a Government response to the consultation was published on the same day. The draft code was then debated in both Houses of Parliament. I am pleased to say that it was approved. The Government will introduce separate legislation to bring the code into force before summer recess.
The Government are going even further by bringing forward this order, which will increase the deterrent effect of the code by adding a protective award where there is non-compliance with the collective consultation requirements in schedule A2 to the 1992 Act. The protective award is compensation awarded by an employment tribunal when an employer does not consult with its employees before dismissing 20 or more of them within any 90-day period at a single establishment.  Schedule A2 to the 1992 Act sets out the list of claims for which an employment tribunal can make a 25% adjustment to compensation if one of the parties has unreasonably failed to comply with a code of practice made using powers in section 203 of the 1992 Act. The relevant code of practice that will be impacted by this change is the code of practice on dismissal and re-engagement. The change will mean that where an employment tribunal is making a protective award, and it appears to it that the employer has unreasonably failed to comply with the code, the tribunal may increase that award by up to 25%. The change was called for by respondents to the consultation, including trade unions, and will increase the deterrent effect of the code.
There are calls to ban the practice of dismissal and re-engagement, or to restrict the practice in a manner that effectively amounts to a ban. The Government believe that we must preserve companies’ flexibility, so that they can manage their workforce in times of crisis. The UK’s flexible labour market is key to economic growth and helps business to thrive, so it is right that we have mechanisms to enable us to save as many jobs as possible. The code is a proportionate response to controversial fire and rehire practices, balancing protections for employees with business flexibility. The vast majority of employers want to do the right thing by their employees. For most employers, decisions to change terms and conditions, or to let members of the workforce go, are not taken lightly.
The UK is a great place to start and grow a business. It has a strong labour market, and its success is underpinned by the balance between labour market flexibility and worker protections. It is vital that we continue to strike the right balance, while clamping down on poor practice. The Government intend the code and the order to be in effect before the summer recess. I commend the order to the House.

Rosie Winterton: I call the shadow Minister.

Justin Madders: Let me begin by referring to my entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I am grateful to the Minister for introducing the debate, and for making the necessary amendments to primary legislation so soon after the code of practice was approved. It has taken us more than two years, but today we see the first actual legislative change to tackle the blight of dismissal and re-engagement—or fire and rehire, as it is more commonly known. We will not oppose today’s motion, but we are clear that the order does not go anywhere near far enough towards ending this cruel practice, or meet the promises made by the Government.
During the two years since we witnessed those disgraceful scenes at P&O, it has continued to benefit from taxpayers’ cash through Government contracts, and fire and rehire hasusb continued to toxify our industrial relations landscape. While the P&O Ferries case itself did not entirely constitute fire and rehire, it bore many of the hallmarks of the practice and exposed the gaping holes in our law—holes that continue to be exploited; in the  wake of the pandemic, there has been a jump in the number of instances of employers choosing to fire and rehire workers.
According to research conducted by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, between August 2021 and 2023, the proportion of firms that conducted fire and rehire almost doubled. What was once a seldom-used device has become a mainstream practice, and part of the wider pattern of growing insecurity at work. In short, it has become a first choice, rather than a last resort. A TUC investigation found that about 38,000 employers were still using fire and rehire as a tactic. However, when we were finally given the code that we were promised would tackle this Dickensian practice, we found instead a vague, weak and disappointing document that would not actually prevent another case as egregious as P&O. On that basis alone, the Government have failed to keep the promise that they made more than two years ago.
The element that many people found most offensive about the P&O case, which today’s motion seeks to address, is the fact that the P&O management were able to look at the sanctions for which they were potentially liable and then decide whether or not they wanted to abide by the law. In effect, the cost of breaking the law was considered to be just another business overhead to be factored into decision making, and, as we saw, the management decided that those sanctions were not a strong enough deterrent to prevent rule-breaking. In its response to the consultation, ACAS said that a 25% penalty
“may not always present a significant deterrent when calculated against the financial costs and risks of an alternative approach.”

John Hayes: I raised exactly those concerns at the time in relation to P&O. The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful argument—and, incidentally, I congratulate the Minister on the motion—but the critical factor is the size of the business involved. A very large business can absorb all kinds of costs that a small local firm cannot. That has been the change, and the regulations that we put in place need to reflect that change, because otherwise those large businesses will behave with impunity.

Justin Madders: I will refer to other comments made by ACAS in response to the consultation, which I think will pick up some of the right hon. Gentleman’s observations.
We now have a clear indication that unscrupulous employers cannot get away scot-free with breaking the law, but there are concerns that a 25% uplift will not be enough to deter bad employers who are determined to do what they feel is necessary. Once P&O had calculated the maximum penalty that it could face in compensation for each employee, it priced that into its decision. In effect, it was able to treat the law on consultation—a law that is there to protect workers’ jobs and their dignity—as optional. Today’s motion means that breaking the law will remain an option; it just might be a slightly more expensive one now.
Laws are only as strong as their enforcement. We believe that sanctions should reflect the egregiousness of the transgression. If an employer decides to break the law, the sanction should not be capped, but instead should be decided on the basis of the facts. That would mean that any employers who were tempted to brazenly  flout their legal obligations, having calculated the cost of breaking the law, would no longer be able to do so, because the cost of the sanction could, in the most serious cases, be much higher than the cost of complying with the law. Smaller transgressions would be treated accordingly by a tribunal. As things stand, the most egregious abuses have a cost ceiling, so those with ill intent can still price in the cost of acting unlawfully.
In its response to the consultation, ACAS said that there were
“grounds for considering whether additional or alternative financial disincentives might help…the government’s policy objectives”,
including
“greater uplifts of awards where this is just and equitable”
or
“where there are especially egregious breaches of the Code.”
It also suggested—this is relevant to the intervention from the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes)—that when deciding appropriate awards, courts and tribunals might be required to consider, for example, whether the employer ought to have known better than to breach the code, the degree of legal advice readily available to it, and its financial resources. We agree with those suggestions. The arrogant, uncaring and deliberate trampling of workers’ rights requires a stronger message from this place that those actions will no longer be tolerated. Bad employers should not be able to buy their way out of doing the right thing, but instead we see the status quo preserved.
Thankfully, many good employers understand the importance of working collaboratively with unions. We commend those employers, and we know that they already go above and beyond the legal requirements, but there is no evidence that the 25% uplift is likely to prove a deterrent to those who do not. The Government do not know how often the compensatory uplift is used in other areas of employment law where there is a similar penalty for transgressing a code of practice, which prompts us to ask on what basis it has been decided that this measure will be effective in preventing employers from failing to follow the code of practice.
We welcome the fact that the order extends the scope of compensation to any situation in which a protective award under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is applicable. I understand that to mean that more traditional redundancy situations will be covered, but there are limitations. There must be 20 or more employees at the same establishment for the obligations to be activated, which means that many smaller employers—and, probably more pertinently, many more employers whose workforce may be spread across many different settings, retail being an obvious example—can still be excluded. The measure also only protects “employees”, which means that some of the most insecure workers in the labour market will not benefit one jot; and, of course, the Government intend to reintroduce employment tribunal fees, which, as we know from experience, inhibit people from enforcing their rights.
The regulations also provide for a 25% reduction in compensation when an employee unreasonably fails to comply with the code of practice. During last month’s debate on the code, I asked the Minister what elements of the P&O case, or indeed any recent mass redundancy exercise, had led him to believe that such provisions were necessary. I am afraid that I did not receive a  satisfactory response then, so I will ask the question again. Is it not the case that nothing in recent high-profile examples of fire and rehire redundancy has made it necessary to give tribunals the power to take away compensation from employees?
We will not oppose the motion, because it is a step, albeit a small one, in the right direction, but let me make it absolutely clear that what is before us will not prevent another case as egregious as that of P&O. It has taken us two years to reach this point—two years in which we have seen growing insecurity at work, and have come no closer to providing the protections that workers in this country deserve. When the Government committed themselves to responding to the outrage of P&O, there was a moment of consensus across the business world, across the political spectrum and indeed across the whole country that this disgraceful practice should be consigned to the history books. Epitomising that consensus, the then Business Secretary, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), said:
“we will not allow this to happen again…where new laws are needed, we will create them…where legal loopholes are cynically exploited, we will close them, and...where employment rights are too weak, we will strengthen them.”—[Official Report, 30 March 2022; Vol. 711, c. 840.]
Those legal loopholes remain as open as they did two years ago, and there is nothing, absolutely nothing, to prevent the outrage of P&O happening again. That is yet another example of the long list of wrongs that  will need a Labour Government to put them right. It is time to end the race to the bottom. It is time to end fire and rehire.

Chris Stephens: I, too, refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
When I saw the Order Paper and an item titled “Terms and Conditions of Employment”, I thought that it was good news—after the 20 times the Government have committed to an employment Bill, perhaps we would actually see it. I thought that nearly seven years on from the Taylor review, of which almost 50 recommendations have not been enacted or brought before the House, we would have an opportunity to create dignity, fairness and an inclusive labour market, leading to a fairer and more equal nation. But what we have today is a snail step, albeit one that I will welcome, with some qualifications.
The reality is that for thousands of workers across these islands, terms and conditions of employment see too many working people become victims at the mercy of bosses looking to cut costs, which is exactly what fire and rehire is about. It is also about zero-hour contracts, bogus self-employment and short notice of shift changes, leaving workers with additional transport and childcare costs, but I want to concentrate on the evil practice of fire and rehire.
My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), who has had to go to a Committee, has tabled two private Member’s Bills that seek to outlaw fire and rehire practices. The Bills are supported by over 100 MPs and the trade unions Unite, the British Airline Pilots’ Association and GMB. I listened carefully to the Minister’s exchanges with my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Edinburgh  West (Christine Jardine), and my scepticism about the order being approved today relates to what would happen in a tribunal case for unfair dismissal where a re-engagement order is placed on an employer following a dismissal, and the tribunal orders a reinstatement. We all know that very few cases in which a tribunal tells an employer to reinstate a worker who has been dismissed leads to a reinstatement, because employers will absorb the additional costs for failing to reinstate. I welcome the fact that there will be a penalty where fire and rehire has taken place, but the same principles are at play here.
I am afraid my scepticism relates to the fact that, as those on the Labour Front Bench have said, this order will not end the practice of fire and rehire. Large employers will get their calculators out and absorb the costs, like we have seen with British Airways and P&O. I saw the Business and Trade Committee’s extraordinary exchanges with P&O’s chief executive last week. I want to see real sanctions, so I ask the Minister to write to us and tell us how many tribunal cases where there has been an order to reinstate have actually led to a reinstatement. I understand that the rate could be as low as 3%, but I would be curious to know the figures, because I suspect that they could tell us what would happen with fire-and-rehire practices.

David Linden: I agree with my hon. Friend, but will not companies such as British Airways, P&O and Asda, which have indulged in this behaviour, look at this as a balance sheet exercise and conclude that the penalty is so small that they can ride it out? Does that not make the case for the Government bringing forward an employment Bill to deal with the issue?

Chris Stephens: I agree that there should be an employment Bill but, exactly as my hon. Friend has outlined, our concern would be that large employers will get the calculator out and decide to absorb the cost. They will then, as they see it, take a smaller financial hit from paying a penalty than they would for fire and rehire. It is an evil practice, and I hope the Government will now consider ending fire and rehire.

Kevin Hollinrake: I thank hon. Members for their contributions, and will address their specific points. As we have discussed this issue before in separate venues, I fully understand that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), does not feel that this order goes far enough. It is interesting to consider the briefings that came from recent discussions in the Labour party about its new plans for the workplace. There was a briefing that the party accepted some situations where dismissal and re-engagement may be needed. That may be a vicious rumour, but it seems to me that those on the Labour Front Bench decide their policy on the basis of whom they have talked to last—whether that is a business, employers or employee representatives.

Justin Madders: We remain committed to banning fire and rehire, but if the Minister wants to debate our policies properly, let us have a general election and see what the public think.

Kevin Hollinrake: Why wait? Let us have the debate now.
The shadow Minister mentioned P&O, as did many other hon. and right hon. Members. Clearly, that was not a situation involving fire and rehire. There is an ongoing investigation, and we believe that P&O broke the law. Following that situation, we introduced the Seafarers Wages Act 2023 to ensure that any company that operates vessels in British waters will pay the national living wage, which will be an effective measure.
The hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) described fire and rehire as an “evil practice”, which is not the right kind of language. There are situations where sometimes employers do the wrong thing by their employees, but most employers do the right thing. There are businesses that have no alternative other than fire and rehire in order to save the business and save jobs. To describe every situation involving dismissal and re-engagement as an “evil practice” is entirely the wrong kind of language.

Chris Stephens: The Minister is being typically generous in giving way. Surely dismissing people and re-engaging them on worse terms and conditions, and in many cases on lower wages—many multinational companies try to get away with that, and some did get away with it during the pandemic—is an evil practice.

Kevin Hollinrake: There are cases where these opportunities are abused—I do not deny that—but the hon. Gentleman is operating on the basis that it is the exception rather than the rule. It is our view, which he may disagree with, that the vast majority of employers do not treat their employees that way. There have been cases where a court has upheld the right of an employer to fire and rehire. Where the employer tries to restructure the company to save jobs, through a salary reduction of a few per cent. for everyone in the workplace, that is better than the business going down. The hon. Gentleman must see that there are some situations in which it is the only option for an employer, which operates in the interests of the wider workforce. It was the right thing to do in those situations. His describing it as an “evil practice” is wrong and misses the point, although there are abuses of the system, as he describes.

David Linden: Unusually, I find myself disagreeing with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens). Are there not scenarios in which the Government think that it is perfectly fine for somebody to be sacked and re-engaged? For example, when the Government led by the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) were collapsing, Ministers resigned and were then reappointed afterwards. Sometimes it is in the Government’s interest to have that option, isn’t it?

Kevin Hollinrake: Well, there is no recourse to an employment tribunal in that situation, and there is certainly no uplift in the compensation that might be received.
I say to the shadow Minister that he should frame the order in its context. The majority of businesses in this country do the right thing by their employees, because they are run by honourable people and treating employees well is the right thing to do for business reasons. His approach of banning dismissal and re-engagement would cost jobs, as would having day-one rights in the area of  unfair dismissal. Bringing forward a single category of worker would also cost jobs, and would create huge difficulties for many sectors. It is not just about the situations that arise in individual circumstances; it is about the fear of those situations arising for businesses when they are trying a new employee. That situation will strike fear into the hearts of many businesses across this country, and will cost jobs. The hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) asked me how many people had appeared before an employment tribunal and then been reinstated. I do not know those numbers but I would be happy to see what numbers we can find for him on that basis.
This order will increase the deterrent effect of the code by adding the protective award for non-compliance with collective consultation requirements to schedule A2 of the 1992 Act. That will mean that where an employer is found to have unreasonably failed to comply with their collective consultation requirements, as well as unreasonably failing to comply with the code, the employment tribunal may increase the employee’s protective award by up to 25%. Subject to the approval of both Houses, the code and the order will be enforced before the summer recess.
The Government are committed to making the UK the most dynamic place in the world to work and to launch, grow and do business. The UK’s flexible labour market is key to economic growth and helping businesses to thrive. However, labour market flexibility must be balanced with appropriate safeguards. The House should be left in no doubt that this Government will always continue to stand behind workers and stamp out unscrupulous practices where they occur.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (Amendment of Schedule A2) Order 2024, which was laid before this House on 22 April, be approved.

Employment (Allocation of Tips)

2.41 pm

Kevin Hollinrake: I beg to move,
That the draft Code of Practice on Fair and Transparent Distribution of Tips, which was laid before this House on 22 April, be approved.
The code of practice, which I will refer to as the code, will give legal effect to standards in the allocation and distribution of tips, gratuities and service charges, and transparency surrounding the keeping of records and the retention of written tipping policies. For brevity, I will refer to tips, gratuities and service charges as tips for the rest of today’s debate. Passage of this code will signal a landmark moment in our protection of workers’ rights. For the first time, the Government are ensuring cast-iron clarity about where tips are going once they have been paid, and setting a new standard for how tips should be treated.

James Gray: The Minister said that, for brevity, he would consider tips, gratuities and service charges all to be tips, but surely service charges, which are a set charge against some practice or service, are quite different from tips, which are for fun or voluntary. Gratuities come somewhere between the two, do they not? Could he kindly enlarge on the definition of those three things?

Kevin Hollinrake: It is our position that they amount to the same thing. We know from customer behaviour that when a customer sees a service charge on their bill, they will usually not tip at that point because they believe that the service charge is a tip. We feel that that is in the same category, which is why we have categorised them together in this instance.
The Employment (Allocation of Tips) Act 2023 was a relatively simple piece of legislation, but one with an important purpose. Following the justified public examination a few years ago of the spectacle of some businesses retaining significant percentages of tips or even keeping them altogether, the Government committed to backing a private Member’s Bill on tipping. The law mandates that all qualifying tips must be passed on to the workers who earn them, rather than being retained by businesses, and it sets out that these tips must be allocated and distributed in a fair and transparent manner.
I reiterate my appreciation, which I set out at this Dispatch Box earlier this year, for the cross-party support that the primary legislation engendered, and for the positive and constructive tone in which all the parliamentary stages were conducted. I want to extend further thanks in particular to the original Bill’s sponsors, my hon. Friends the Members for Watford (Dean Russell) and for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie), and subsequently Lord Robathan in the House of Lords. Today we are another step closer to bringing these important measures into effect.
It was remarked at the time that the detail was crucial, and we elaborated on that detail in December with the publication of the draft statutory code of practice on fair and transparent distribution of tips. I am grateful for the large volume and quality of the responses we received during the public consultation that followed. Everyone who provided feedback, whether via an online survey, through an email response or in a meeting with officials at my Department, should know  that their views have been considered carefully. Responses have been used to amend and enhance the code, and will continue to inform the communications and support for businesses implementing these measures.
We were pleased to lay the updated code of practice before Parliament on Monday 22 April. The code was also published on gov.uk alongside a full Government response to the consultation, which provides more detail on the feedback received from businesses, workers and other stakeholders. I trust that right hon. and hon. Members have had, or will have, the opportunity to study the detail of the code in their own time, but I will briefly set out its provisions here today.
The code of practice contains summaries of the key intentions of the Act. The code sets out the scope of this legislation, emphasising that it covers all qualifying tips—that is, employer-received tips and worker-received tips over which an employer exerts control or significant influence. These measures apply to every sector and across England, Scotland and Wales. The code goes on to provide more detail on the need to maintain fairness in the allocation and distribution of tips. Rather than being prescriptive and potentially burdensome to employers, the code articulates key principles for employers to consider, protecting both the rights of workers and flexibility for a variety of approaches from businesses.
The code helps employers to engage in constructive and positive consultation with their workers, and helps to minimise the risk of discrimination, which may be indirect or unintentional, if due care is not taken. The code sets out that employers need to uphold transparency in the handling of tips. This includes keeping a written tipping policy that is clearly communicated to all affected workers. This requirement also includes retaining accurate tipping records to which workers have the right to request access. One thing to note is that this need to maintain a written tipping policy and make it available to workers does not apply to businesses that receive tips only on an occasional and exceptional basis.
Finally, the code expands on how to resolve conflicts that arise between employers and workers. While early and internal resolution of issues is preferable for all involved, workers may consult ACAS for impartial advice and assistance in resolving problems. The code informs workers about how an unresolved dispute may be escalated to an employment tribunal.

James Gray: I am listening to the Minister carefully. I am sorry that I am not as familiar with the original Act I should be, and I apologise if I ask a foolish question as a result. He mentioned a moment ago that the code of practice would not apply to industries in which tipping occurs only rarely. Will he expand on what those are? For example, if I tip a taxi driver, would it apply to that? Obviously not. If I tip a waiter in a restaurant because he has been particularly helpful to me, why should that be shared with other people in the restaurant? To what sort of industries would the code not apply?

Kevin Hollinrake: As I said earlier, that provision does not apply to an industry or organisation that receives tips on an occasional or exceptional basis. An example would be a Christmas box or a Christmas   present for somebody, or an industry that is not used to getting those kinds of gifts. My hon. Friend talked about the taxi industry, which is an industry in which people regularly receive tips. He also talked about a situation where a customer gives a tip directly to a worker. That tip can be kept by the worker if it is given directly to that worker and is not in the control of the employer. That is the difference: a tip given directly to somebody in a restaurant or some other place can be kept by that individual. We would expect that to be set out in a policy at employer level.
I want to take this opportunity to place on the record the Government’s gratitude to ACAS and all those involved in the tribunal system for their continued diligence on tipping and many other matters of employment law. Overall, the Government are proud today to endorse the approval of this code of practice. Following approval by this House and by the House of Lords, the code and the other measures in the Act will come into force on Tuesday 1 October.
With this code of practice, the Government are righting a wrong, delivering a level playing field for businesses and continuing our proud record of standing up for and defending the rights of workers. I commend the statutory code of practice on fair and transparent distribution of tips to the House.

Justin Madders: I thank the Minister for his introduction. Once again, I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I also join the Minister in paying tribute to  the hon. Members for Watford (Dean Russell) and for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) for their work on the private Member’s Bill that led to where we are today.
As the Minister outlined, we are finally here to debate the code of practice on fair and transparent distribution of tips, which is necessary to deliver the provisions of the Employment (Allocation of Tips) Act 2023. I say “finally” not just because it has taken a year since Royal Assent for a code to be agreed, but because it has been seven years since action was first promised on tips.
As far back as 2017, the Conservatives promised to ensure fair tips for hospitality workers. In that time, it is estimated that workers will have missed out on some £200 million a year in lost tips. That is over £1 billion taken from workers in some of the economy’s lowest paid jobs. It is a little disappointing to see that the Government have delayed the Act’s implementation from July until October 2024. By our calculations, this further delay will cost people in the hospitality sector another £50 million.
With that out of the way, I make it clear that we will not oppose the code. Action on tips is already long overdue, and we do not want to see it delayed any longer. We believe that these measures will have a positive impact on the lives of workers in the hospitality sector and other industries that frequently receive tips, but we also consider that there is room for improvement. I will refer to those specific issues in due course.
However, I start by referring to the Government’s consultation, which starkly set out why action is needed. The proportion of respondents who reported that they did not receive the tips to which they were entitled was very significant. Only half of those who completed the  consultation reported that staff receive all the tips. Of course, this means that half the respondents to the consultation do not. Extrapolated across those working in the sector, around 1 million workers will benefit from this legislation. Of those reporting that staff do not receive all the tips, 21% reported that there was an administrative fee, another 13% said there were other deductions, and a staggering 11% reported that no tips were passed on at all. It is jarring that, in the face of such clear mistreatment of workers, there has been such a delay to get to this point. That the Government chose to delay the implementation of the Act after discovering the staggering statistics in the consultation rubs a little salt into the wound.
Some 73% of workers who responded to the consultation reported that their employer had not sought agreement on the allocation of tips, and 40% of employers consulted did not pass on tips to agency workers, in part or in total, which clearly needs to be addressed, and it will be by this legislation. These statistics may be a reason why we face another delay, because clearly a lot of businesses need to get up to speed in order to be compliant, which begs the question of why more has not been done before now.
Will the Minister outline the Government’s approach to working with businesses to ensure that they are aware of their obligations under the new laws? What steps will the Department take to ensure support in the areas where businesses raised concerns in the consultation, such as transparency and record keeping on tip allocation and distribution? I am particularly interested in how the Department plans to engage with small and medium-sized enterprises to ensure that they remain compliant with the law once it comes into effect. Workers will benefit only if employers are aware of and compliant with the law, so it would be welcome to hear the Government’s plans.
I draw the House’s attention to a couple of specific elements of the code. Paragraph 25, on employers consulting their workforce on the policy, seems pretty minimal in setting out what a good consultation looks like. If an individual makes an employment tribunal claim, does the Minister envisage there being any opportunity for there to be an examination of the quality of the consultation?
The very important point at paragraph 26 needs further clarification. It says that employers should review their allocation policy “on a regular basis”, but there is no indication of the timescale within which this should take place. Does the Minister have a view on what the timescale might be? We are dealing with a workforce who might change quite regularly.
That leads me to the question of enforcement. I repeat the old adage that people’s rights are only as strong as their ability to enforce them. The sector to which the Act predominantly applies is made up of workers in insecure, low-paid jobs that are generally in non-unionised workplaces. Staff turnover is high, meaning that many workers do not stay with the same employer, or even within the same industry, for long periods of time.
These factors will doubtless have an impact on workers’ ability to assert the rights afforded under the Act. Many may be entirely unaware of the stipulations of the Act. Even if they are aware of the stipulations, they might not always be aware of the ways in which they can enforce them. Particularly if the Government persist  with their plan to reintroduce employment tribunal fees, it may well not be financially viable for people to assert their rights, as the fee for lodging a claim might well be more than a worker is seeking to claim back.
More fundamentally, a worker on a zero-hours contract or in another form of insecure work may fear that asserting their rights will be detrimental to their future chances of receiving work. For example, if a worker on a zero-hours contract is concerned that they have been underpaid the tips to which they are entitled and requests to view their tipping record, as is their right under the Act, their employer might consider this behaviour to be stirring the pot and choose to reduce the hours they give that worker, or possibly even to stop giving them work at all. A worker with less than two years’ service can be dismissed without cause and have no claim for unfair dismissal.
The legislation does not cater for people to claim that they have been unfairly dismissed for asserting their statutory rights under the Act. If that is the case, it is a huge oversight given that there is protection against unfair dismissal for asserting most other statutory rights. Will the Minister consider looking at this point again, as there is a real concern that, unless people have legal protection and confidence that the law is on their side, they may be reluctant to avail themselves of their rights.
In terms of the impact on the tribunal system, have the Government made an assessment of the propensity of those in the hospitality sector to take forward claims? Has modelling been done to judge the expected number of workers who will take forward tribunal claims?
It seems to me that the lack of proper protections will mean that the minority of bad employers will be able to continue operating with impunity, withholding the tips that their workers have rightfully earned. As a minimum, I would expect there to be some monitoring of the legislation’s effectiveness, perhaps through surveys or consultations. After all, paragraph 35 of the code states:
“An employer cannot be said to have met its obligation to handle tips fairly and transparently if individual workers are not aware of their entitlements in line with the tipping policy.”
If we are to have confidence that those words mean something, surely we need monitoring to ensure that the code is effective.
There are a couple of other issues that I would like to raise. First, on when a worker is entitled to receive their tips for a given month, the code makes reference to the provision that a tip must be paid by the end of the next month. There is a question about why tips are not passed over on the same schedule as most workers are paid.
Secondly, according to paragraph 13, tipping by app is judged to be out of scope of the legislation. Can the Minister confirm exactly what “tipping by app” means? I take it to be a form of digital tipping, akin to leaving cash, but we need some clarity. Will he outline what work the Department has done to identify the types of tipping practices that will be in scope? There is a concern that, although tipping by app might not be widespread now, it could be seen as a way to avoid obligations under the Act in certain circumstances, to prevent staff from getting the tips that were intended for them.
In summary, we welcome the fact that the Government have finally got to the stage of being able to implement this policy. Sadly, we will have to wait another five months for it to be implemented, but the changes set out today  will have a positive impact on workers, who for too long have been losing money that was always intended for them. We will monitor the progress of this legislation closely and, if necessary, take further steps to ensure the good intentions behind this Act are delivered in full.

Dean Russell: It is a proud moment for me to stand here today, because I brought in the private Member’s Bill behind this change and was able to get it over the line with the able effort and support of my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie). It is a joyous day, because I am absolutely passionate about two things, fairness and Watford, and we have some fantastic hospitality locations in Watford. Our cafés and restaurants include Jamaica Blue, the Flourish bakery, the Beech House, the Tudor Arms, the Sun Postal sports club, the Badger pub, Rhubarb Café, Random Café, Cassio Lounge and so many more. I would love everyone here to visit as often as possible, because they would see delights that they would get nowhere else in the world.
I list all those locations because in each hospitality organisation, in each café and restaurant, there are not only people who run the business, but many staff who work in it. I was talking about the tips Bill way back when I originally tried to introduce it via a presentation Bill, which did not quite make it through. As I have a routine of never giving up, I managed to obtain a private Member’s Bill—that was through luck—and then got it through, very much with thanks to the Government. I especially thank the Minister who is on the Front Bench today, who is doing incredible work, and his team.
This measure was so important to me because I would go to meet these organisations and chat to staff, especially during the pandemic, and they were all consistent in their concerns about whether they would get to keep tips. A big shift took place at that time from people giving cash to somebody individually towards a world where cash is not so common. That is not necessarily a good place to be, but it is the way the world has moved. Far more people will now pay a tip on a credit card at the end of a meal or when they leave a café. Every one of us will have asked the same question when we have made that payment and given our tip, which is, “Will you get this?” My Bill will help to resolve that.

James Gray: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his superb effort in getting his Bill through, as it is a wonderful thing to have done. I support the principles behind it, but I am slightly puzzled by one aspect: should the restauranteur or bar owner not be charging the correct price for the service, without any tip or service charge having to be added on? Should he not be paying his workers a fair wage for the job they are doing, without any tips, service charge or other things added? Surely my hon. Friend’s Bill will set this in stone. I say that even though I do not like tips very much, as I would much rather pay a fair price to the restauranteur and to the person who works for them.

Dean Russell: My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point, which gets to the heart of this: the fairness here is to not just the workers, but the businesses. Most businesses do the right thing and pay a decent  salary. The Minister can correct me on this, but I believe that legislation taken through a while ago means that tips cannot form part of a salary. So businesses should be paying a decent wage. When some organisations do the wrong thing, what they are doing is anti-competitive; they are making profit off the backs of their workers by keeping their tips, and the businesses doing the right thing in giving 100% of the tips to the staff are less competitive. My approach is therefore far fairer to the majority of businesses that do the right thing, and to the workers. It is also far fairer to the customers, who thought that the money was going to the staff and did not realise that a percentage of it, or in some instances all of it, was being taken from them.
My Bill will ensure fairness—that is the key word we should all take from the Bill and from today’s debate. It will ensure that all tips, 100% of them, are paid to staff. Agency staff will be included in that; when I originally talked about this Bill, some had a concern about a two-tier system for workers. The Bill will also ensure that a policy is in place—a code of practice—so that businesses ensure that their staff know where they stand. Businesses will be able to be clear with everyone who works for them how the tipping practice will work; I will not go through the full list, as the Minister did an excellent job of listing it earlier.
This measure has been a journey. I mentioned my work on the Bill with my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn, but, as with all journeys, I began this trek much earlier. In many ways, this began with the fantastic work done by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sir Sajid Javid) when he was a Secretary of State. He put in place the work enabling the Government to look at how we could make sure tipping was fair, so this measure is built on the shoulders of giants. I will not list them now, but many Members have been involved in making sure my Bill came to fruition. Many organisations were also involved, and I thank UKHospitality, especially Kate Nicholls, who has done a fantastic job; and the Night Time Industries Association, which has done brilliant work. Conservative Members do not often talk positively about unions, but the GMB has done fantastic work, and I should give another mention to ACAS. Lots of businesses, employers and employees have also really pushed for this to come to fruition.
I want to thank some current and former members of the Government, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), who was incredibly supportive when I originally tried to bring my legislation in as a presentation Bill. At the time, we were going to make it part of the Employment Bill. Unfortunately, that did not happen, but many of the policies that were going to be included did happen through various other routes. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Jane Hunt), who was a fantastic supporter and an able Minister.
Of course, I also thank the Minister before us today and his team. He has been excellent in making sure that this is pushed forward and, through him, I would like to thank his team. Some of them were my team in my short time as a Minister, so I know the passion they had about making sure that we got this right. During my brief time as a Minister, I had to hand over this precious baby of mine, the tips Bill, to a colleague to make sure we could keep it moving forward through the House. That was when I was able to speak to my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn, who has an incredibly  important hospitality industry in her constituency. I could not think of someone more able and more energetic to make sure that we got the Bill through. Through her work and our work with Lord Robathan, we made sure that it got through and received Royal Assent. Many Members will not know that on the day it was given, I was fortunate enough to meet the King that morning in Parliament—I am sure that is a rare story and one for a pub quiz sometime in the future.
The other person I would like to give a huge thanks to is the lady who rarely gets a mention in here but who is behind so many of these incredibly important Bills: my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris). She does an incredible job in giving us guidance on how to navigate the complex system of getting a Bill through Parliament and in giving us confidence that it is possible. She has made sure that many Bills have got through and gone on this incredibly important journey, including many others in which I have had involvement in different ways, such as those on flexible working, maternity care, leave and so on.
My Bill will help about 2 million hospitality workers across the UK. That is an incredible number. When I have spoken about this to people around the House or to my constituents, I have found that so many more people will talk about its importance: customers who want to make sure that money for which they have worked hard and which they are giving as a thank you gets to the people they are giving it to; and colleagues who have family members who work as waiters or waitresses, or who work in bars, as this will make sure that they get the money that has been gifted to them. Many colleagues have spoken to me about their experiences of working in hospitality while at university or when they were younger. That has shown me how the hospitality sector plays an important role in our society: it provides a type of apprenticeship to many of us before our careers. We learn a lot about our culture, society and community, as well as about people, through hospitality. That is why I have been so passionate about saving our night-time economy, including music venues, in Watford and across the UK. Music venues have been at the heart of our society and I fear they may be damaged in the future, but I hope the Bill may play a small part in helping them.
The Bill is also about fairness. It is impossible to legislate for fairness in society—it is a gut feel—but fairness is at the heart of what it is to be British. We believe in fairness in all parts of our society. At its heart, the legislation goes back to the fact that when someone gives money as a gift to someone else, they expect them to get it. That is what this Bill will ensure, and I am grateful to the Government for that.
I want to raise a couple of related points with the Minister to ensure they are covered as the legislation moves forward. We need to ensure there is a communications strategy before October so that workers know their rights, how to access them and what is covered. Businesses also need to know that the legislation will not be a burden. During the early stages of the Bill, I was mindful that it must not be a burden and more red tape for businesses. The majority of businesses get that and understand it. Those that were doing the wrong thing will, no doubt, kick up a fuss. Over the coming weeks and months, we will probably hear about businesses trying to get around the regulations by forming new  practices. I hope the Government will clamp down on those, and name and shame the businesses involved; I will certainly be happy to do that to ensure that fairness is the heart of the regulations.
The Government have a role to play in supporting the hospitality sector as a whole as best they can. Businesses in the sector are important parts of our communities; they are in the heart of every village, town and city. Hospitality is often the reason people visit an area, it is often the first port of call for a job and a career, and it plays an important role in entertainment and culture. No other industry has such an important and broad role, so I want to ensure it is fair. I thank the Government, the Minister and colleagues across the House who have been incredibly supportive, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn. Finally, may I say a huge thank you to my constituents in Watford? If they had not put me here, the Bill may not have been making progress today.

Rosie Winterton: I call the spokesperson for the Scottish National party.

David Linden: It is genuinely a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Watford (Dean Russell). I thank him and congratulate him on the private Member’s Bill that led to this code of practice coming to the Floor of the House. It is a small but significant step forward in improving workers’ rights. Regardless of our political differences—I suspect there are many—I have always found the hon. Gentleman to be kind, thoughtful and dedicated to public service, and I am very grateful for that. It is therefore no surprise that having won the equivalent of the parliamentary lottery, he chose to bring forward legislation that commands such cross-party support, and I thank him for that.
I will make reference to the briefing issued by Unite the union later in my remarks, but at the outset I declare my own membership of Unite, although I should be clear that I have no particular financial interests to declare.
One of the most frustrating aspects of the 2019 to 2024 Parliament has been the lack of significant progress on improving employment law more generally. Yes, there have been piecemeal bits of legislation, such as the Bills brought forward by the hon. Member for Watford, my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) and the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), but they have all come forward as limited Back-Bench Bills. It is undeniable that a vacuum was created for these private Members’ Bills to move forward due to the sheer absence of the substantial Government employment Bill that many of us expected. Indeed, we were promised such a Bill on no less than 20 occasions by Ministers. It is now seven years since the Taylor review and still no action has been forthcoming from the recommendations of that report.

Kevin Hollinrake: I am sure the hon. Gentleman would like to correct the record. A number of recommendations in the Taylor review have been implemented, not least the right to request predictable terms and conditions, which went further than the recommendations in the review. Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that fact?

David Linden: I am absolutely willing to acknowledge that some recommendations from the Taylor review have been progressed, but no significant action has been forthcoming. A lot of MPs have said that; indeed, even the hon. Member for Watford said it was regrettable that there was not an employment Bill. I am simply pointing out the fact that an employment Bill was promised in this Parliament. We found time to legislate on a whole manner of other issues, some of which have, frankly, been with a view to creating a wedge at the general election, whereas we know that the legislation framework we have around employment law is not necessarily fit for the 21st century and the kind of economy we now have.
The UK exited the European Union in January 2020 to the cheers and trumpets of Brexiteers who promised that Britannia unchained from Brussels would lead to an improvement in workers’ rights. In reality, and from what I can see in Glasgow, all that has happened is that employers in the hospitality and tourism sectors now just have fewer workers.
In citing the briefing from Unite, I want to thank it for the work it has done to engage with employees and to gauge their opinions about tipping policy. For context, those who have responded are already engaged trade unionists with a track record of activism and a decent understanding of policy. That is what makes the answers particularly striking. When asking whether an employee’s workplace passed on all tips to its staff the answers were: yes, 63%; don’t know, 21%; no, 11%; and some 5% indicated that tips were only accepted by card on an employer-operated tronc that employees paid tax on. Those statistics paint a picture of the sheer scale of the issues workers face, especially when it comes to tipping in hospitality.
On tipping policy, some other issues need to be ironed out and considered further, namely whether backroom staff, such as those who are integral to preparing and producing a meal, not just delivering it to the table, be tipped, and whether the tips are being distributed equitably. All workers need to be eligible to receive tips, whether they are on a zero-hours contract or are permanent. Progress has been made on extending tips to agency workers, but in reality we now operate in a gig economy. It is vital that the legislative framework that comes from this place reflects that.
From the Government’s response to the consultation, 40% of employers admit that they do not issue tips to agency workers despite that being an obligation under section 27H of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The hon. Member for Watford was spot on when he said that the comms to employers and employees must be very clear in the run-up to October this year. There must be something that can be done, for example, with employees who still receive a payslip. Could the Government bring forward measures to require all employers to put some sort of small note on payslips to make clear that the laws on tipping will change in a couple of months?
The legislation we are piloting through the House today makes the point that our legislative framework does not reflect the reality of the UK economy and labour force in 2024. More needs to be done to protect workers, especially those on zero-hours contracts. Arguably, that point should weigh heavily on the minds of shadow Ministers who, if polls are to be believed, might shortly be assuming red boxes and Whitehall offices in the coming months.
As we approach the cigarette end of this Parliament, attention turns to the incoming Government and their ambitions for workers’ rights. It would be fair to say that the small c conservative approach to workers’ rights from the official Opposition has not necessarily been wholly welcomed by those in the Labour movement. Only last week, Unite’s general secretary, Sharon Graham, was on record as saying:
“It looks like all the warnings Unite made earlier about the dangers of Labour rowing back on its pledges for the New Deal for Workers have been proved right. This new Labour document on the New Deal, issued to the unions on Monday, is a row back on a row back. It is totally unrecognisable from the original proposals produced with the unions. Unrecognisable. Workers will see through this and mark this retreat after retreat as a betrayal. This new document is turning what was a real new deal for workers into a charter for bad bosses. Labour don't want a law against fire and rehire and they are effectively ripping up the promise of legislation on a new deal for workers in its first 100 days.”

Rosie Winterton: Order. I assume the hon. Gentleman will be coming back to the motion before us.

David Linden: I am very happy to inform you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I am talking on employment legislation, which I believe is germane to this debate.
Unite’s general secretary goes on to say:
“Instead, we have codes of conduct and pledges of consultation with big business. Likewise, the proposal to legislate against zero hours contracts is watered down to almost nothing…In truth this new document is not worthy of discussion. All unions must now demand that Labour changes course and puts the original New Deal for Workers back on the table.”
That was a warning shot to the Labour party that it, too, must be more ambitious and not leave the task of protecting workers’ rights to the valiant efforts of Back-Bench MPs who happen to be lucky in the private Members’ Bill draw.
I am sure that you will be glad to know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I will draw my remarks to a close, and say, yes, the measures before us today have the potential to put up to £200 million a year back into the pockets of hospitality staff and could benefit more than 2 million workers across the hospitality, leisure and service sectors.
That is a legislative achievement to be rightly celebrated in this place but it comes against a backdrop of increasing legislation that restricts the rights of trade unions to exercise functions of collective bargaining. It is no surprise, therefore, that the UK now has some of the most restrictive trade union laws in western Europe—something that has worsened over the past decade. Workers deserve better, and today is another baby step to improving things, but it largely goes against the grain of Westminster policy formulation when it comes to workers’ rights. And it is frankly little wonder that the Labour movement in Scotland, so ably represented by the Scottish Trades Union Congress, has now concluded that legislative competence for employment law should be devolved to Scottish Ministers. Failure to do so—be that by Labour or the Tories—will lead Scots to conclude one thing and one thing only: that Westminster is not working for working people.

Virginia Crosbie: I am delighted to be speaking on the day that this code of practice is approved by this House.
When I took over the sponsorship of the Employment (Allocation of Tips) Bill, a private Member’s Bill due to his promotion of my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell)—a champion for Watford—I knew just how important it would be to the pockets of millions of people across the UK, particularly in my constituency.
The Bill is about fairness and transparency. It is about reducing discrimination and it is about creating a level playing field for businesses. Importantly, the code will enable disputes to be resolved quickly and fairly. Some 8% of people in the UK work in the tourism sector. That rises to 11% in Wales and a whopping 18% on Ynys Môn—that is right, almost one in five is employed in the tourism and hospitality sector in my constituency of Ynys Môn.
If, as is estimated, workers in the sector will receive an average £200 per year more in their pockets, then a rough calculation suggests that this measure alone could generate around £900,000 for workers across Ynys Môn annually. As someone who financed my A-level and university studies by waitressing, I know at first hand how important tips are.
Madam Deputy Speaker, this Bill is not a new nuclear power station or a freeport, but it is significant to local workers and families struggling with the cost of living. I have to say that those working in hospitality and tourism on Anglesey are a fantastic bunch and are dedicated to supporting our local communities in so many ways.
The team in the Oystercatcher in Rhosneigr are working with community champion Sue Gillett to help raise funds for Mirili Môn as part of Dementia Week this Thursday. At Catch 22 in Valley, Neil, Mel and the team support local farmers through their farmers markets. The Driftwood in Trearddur Bay hosts fabulous quizzes to raise funds for local community groups such as the Scouts, the SSAFA, and the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. And Dave and Amanda Jones from Anglesey Fishing Trips do so much to reach out to tourists and to our local community.
There are so many fantastic people and communities that will benefit from this measure, particularly those on Ynys Môn, and I am proud to see that, with the approval of this code of practice, this legislation is moving another step closer.

Kevin Hollinrake: I thank hon. Members for their contributions to this debate in which we are seeking to ensure that the draft code of practice on fair and transparent distribution of tips is approved.
I will turn now to the specific issues raised. The shadow Minister talked about engaging with the sector, which is very important. I can tell him that we engage regularly with organisations such as UK Hospitality, the British Beer and Pub Association and the British Institute of Innkeeping on these matters and have been doing so for many months, as we want to make sure that their views are heard. The non-statutory  guidance that we will be bringing forward should provide more help for those organisations to comply with the important provisions of this legislation.
The shadow Minister asked whether we would review the policy on a regular basis. We will obviously keep all these matters under review, and the guidance should help to inform the sector about requirements in terms of both employees and businesses. It is hugely important that we do so. He asked whether a person could take a claim forward to an employment tribunal for unfair dismissal. Clearly, employment tribunals are there to ensure that workers can assert their rights if they feel that their rights have not been respected, so we would definitely expect an employment tribunal to hear such a case.
The shadow Minister asked about tipping by digital apps. We see this as a new phenomenon and an interesting development, enabling the customer to be able to tip an individual using an app, QR code or whatever, and we will not stand in the way of that. Where a tip has been given directly to a member of staff, it is clear that that tip should be kept by the member of staff. The app is there to allow flexibility in the implementation of the code or the guidance, rather than allowing businesses to avoid their clear obligations.
The shadow Minister asked about payments and why they are paid the following month. I think it is reasonable to allow a business to be able to calculate the amount of tips that are received in a month and then pay those out to workers in the month following. We think that that is a reasonable balance to strike. He asks why we are taking another five months to put this legislation in place. Clearly, we want to ensure two things—that we get this right and that we respect some of the pressures that exist in the hospitality sector, which has been through a difficult time, with increases in the national living wage, the cost of living crisis and the covid pandemic. We are trying to make sure that we take the sector with us, rather than impose unfair new burdens on it. We do not think that these measures are unfair, because we know that the majority of businesses would adopt these kind of rules even without this legislation.
The hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) seemed to imply that we on the Conservative Benches were going to use Brexit to improve workers’ rights. I am always keen to improve workers’ rights, and we have done so in this Parliament, but I remember his party clearly saying that Brexit would be a bonfire of workers’ rights and that certainly has not been the case.

David Linden: Does the Minister consider that workers’ rights have improved? If he does, why is it that trade union organisations across Europe recognise that the UK has some of the worst employment rights across Europe?

Kevin Hollinrake: Yes, those rights have got better. We have introduced legislation that covers the right to request flexible working, neonatal care leave, carers’ leave, protection to cover redundancy during pregnancy and return to work, the right to request predictable terms and conditions, the tipping Bill, and shared parental leave. All those things have been introduced, or supported, by this Government. We see those protections not as an opportunity to create a wedge issue, but as the right thing to do by our workers.

David Linden: Is the Minister seriously trying to tell the House that the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), did not relish the opportunity to bring forward the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023, seeing it as a wedge issue that would cause trouble with the Labour party? Come on!

Kevin Hollinrake: That is a refrain that we constantly hear from the SNP. To be fair to the hon. Gentleman, he did refer to ensuring that we worked alongside hospitality on the guidance, but apart from that, there was nothing in his remarks about the needs of business, and the legislation is about the needs of business. The strikes that affected this country, particularly at the end of last year and in the year before last, cost the hospitality sector around £3 billion. That is why we legislated as we did, and we feel it was the right thing to do.
The hon. Gentleman would do well to reflect further on the needs of business as well as the needs of workers. We believe that there is a balance to be struck, and he has got that balance wrong in Scotland. Hon. Members need not listen to me; just look at the numbers. The most recent figures for economic growth in Scotland over the 10 years from 2011 to 2021 show Scotland’s cumulative GDP growth at 7.2%, England’s at 14.9% and the whole of the UK’s at 12.9%. SNP MPs would do better to go back to their nation and constituency and drive economic progress forward.
My hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell), who has done such good work in this area, talks about fairness. I know he stands up for fairness, and for Watford; I have seen the amazing montages of all the times that he has mentioned Watford in this Chamber. He deserves plaudits for his work. He says that he was lucky, but as the great Gary Player said, the harder you work, the luckier you get. The success that my hon. Friend has been an instigator of today is due to his hard work and determination. He talks about what we have done on communications, working with employer groups, employee groups and the hospitality sector. Yes, we do that—we work with trade unions, ACAS, UKHospitality, the British Beer and Pub Association, the British Institute of Innkeeping and others to ensure that the code of practice and the guidance that will follow will leave them fully cognisant of the requirements on the sector—a sector that is so important to our economy.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray) said he does not like giving tips. He is free not to give a tip if he does not feel it is appropriate, but most people would say that for good service, they would   be prepared to provide a tip. The key point of this legislation is that that tip should be retained by the individuals who provided the service.

James Gray: May I correct the impression my hon. Friend has given of what I said? I did not say that I do not like giving tips. I like giving tips—I am quite a generous tipper, I think. However, I wish I did not have to. I wish people were paid enough to make tips unnecessary. That was the point I was making.

Kevin Hollinrake: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Of course, we have increased the national minimum wage by record amounts this year to try to make sure that people get paid enough. It did surprise me to think that he would not be a generous tipper, because he has been generous in all my interactions with him.
Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) talked about her constituents and the benefits that the code will bring—£900,000 in her constituency, I think she said. She does a great job for her constituents. I must say that my daughters are both pretty pleased with the code as well, as they both work in local establishments.
When the code and other provisions on tipping come into force in October, we will right a wrong and ensure that tip money goes where it should: to the workers who provided the service. We will continue to monitor the operation of the code and the major industries that it covers, and we will not hesitate to amend it—with parliamentary approval, of course—if necessary. I can also confirm that additional, non-statutory guidance will be published before the code comes into force, to provide further background and help employers to remain compliant with the requirement. I commend the motion to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Code of Practice on Fair and Transparent Distribution of Tips, which was laid before this House on 22 April, be approved.

Business of the House (Today)

Ordered,
That, at this day’s sitting, the Speaker shall put the Question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister relating to War Graves Week not later than 7.00pm or not later than three hours after their commencement, whichever is the later; proceedings on that Motion may continue, though opposed, after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) and provisions of Standing Order No. 9(3) relating to motions that this House has considered a specified matter shall not apply.—(Mr Gagan Mohindra.)

War Graves Week

Grant Shapps: I beg to move,
That this House has considered War Graves Week.
The Commonwealth War Graves Commission does extraordinary work keeping alive the memories of the 1.7 million men and women who gave their life in the service of our country and the Commonwealth in both world wars. It tends to and maintains graves, memorials and sites at 23,000 locations in 153 countries around the world, from single graves to the largest cemetery at Tyne Cot, near Passchendaele, where almost 12,000 of the fallen from the first world war are buried and remembered. Among the 300,000-plus total casualties of Passchendaele was 20-year-old James Leaning, a private with the Hertfordshire Regiment. He was tragically killed on the first day of the battle, and is buried at the Menin Gate memorial in Ypres, which is lovingly maintained by the commission.
Beyond concerning itself with the neat-cut grass, the flower beds, and the mind-blowing numbers—row upon row—of pristine headstones, and of names on memorial walls, the Commonwealth War Grave Commission does even more extraordinary and priceless work to remind every generation about the service and sacrifice of those who died to forge our freedoms, and about the gargantuan human cost of war. We celebrate the commission’s work during Commonwealth War Grave Week, but I know that Members on both sides of the House will join me in expressing our appreciation for what it does to keep the flame of remembrance burning 365 days a year.

Theresa May: It is a great honour to have the Commonwealth War Graves Commission headquartered in my constituency. Given what my right hon. Friend has just said, I am sure that he will join me in thanking not only the staff based in Maidenhead, but those around the world who manage and maintain war graves—often in very difficult circumstances, in countries where other conflicts are taking place—so that the families of those who have fallen know that the sacrifice of their loved one is appropriately recognised.

Grant Shapps: I very warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s contribution, and I join her in thanking her constituents at head office in Maidenhead for all the work that they do—often, as she rightly says, in incredibly difficult and sometimes conflict-live locations around the world.
I am sure that Members will join me in thanking  my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) and the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) for their work as serving commissioners. I take my role as chair of the commissioners, and the Ministry of Defence’s long running relationship with the commission, extremely seriously. The Government provide nearly 80% of the commission’s budget—around £55 million each year—and the other member Governments of Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand and South Africa together provide the remaining 20%, in direct correlation to the numbers of each nationality commemorated.
An important part of the commission’s work is to continue the search to identify all those who gave their life but have yet to be commemorated, and to tell the stories behind the names carved on headstones and memorials.

Christine Jardine: On the point about updating graves, over the Easter recess, I met people from the Spitfire AA810 project, which aims to improve our understanding of the work undertaken by pilots in the photographic reconnaissance unit. One of the project’s major tasks is learning who was part of the unit, as there is no complete listing of those who served in Royal Air Force photo reconnaissance during world war two. It has identified around 420 British casualties among those who served, as well as pilots from across the Commonwealth. Does the Minister agree that we should ensure that war graves and other memorials—perhaps one to those Spitfire pilots—are updated and expanded as we find out more?

Grant Shapps: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. A feature of the fog of war, but also of record-keeping at the time and in the many years that have passed since, is that it is sometimes difficult to piece things back together. We in this House all appreciate the efforts of the commission and the importance of ensuring that we recognise every single name whenever new information comes to light.
The commission is playing a central role in the Government’s D-day 80 commemorations, including by bringing the generations together through its Legacy of Liberation torch relay. That torch was passed on by the Prime Minister earlier today at Horse Guards. I was there, and was delighted to host that relay, which will end with young people passing the flame to veterans at the commission’s Bayeux cemetery on D-day.
The commission’s war cemetery sites include one in Gaza, an active war location. This point has been discussed before, and I am pleased to be able to share with the House some news that has emerged, despite the very dire humanitarian situation on the ground. I was recently asked to help with the safe passage of Commonwealth War Graves Commission staff out of Gaza, and I am heartened to confirm that just last week, five of the commission’s six staff who wanted to leave made it safely to Egypt, along with their immediate families, where they will join the commission’s in-country staff until it is safe for them to return.
Like any large organisation in inflationary times, the commission faces and has faced significant budgetary challenges, as well as costs associated with its ageing sites, many of which were not built with any kind of longevity in mind. It has also had to adapt its sites to the impact of changing weather and climates. In recent years, the Ministry of Defence has worked closely with the commission to develop a new strategy to help tackle those challenges sufficiently, which includes working to make sure that the commission remains both relevant and affordable in the years ahead. As a consequence of that work, the commission put forward a bid to its member Governments for a temporary uplift in funding over three years. I am pleased to tell the House that I approved that bid earlier this year, in order to ensure that the commission can overcome the challenges it faces and continue to preserve its sites, which are such a  tangible and important touchstone for our nation’s history, and such an important part of the story of our national life. I was pleased to be able to provide an uplift of £2.6 million a year over the next three years, and I am also pleased to report that the sum was matched in the normal proportions by our partner Governments.
Without the extraordinary work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, memories of all the sacrifices made—all the work, effort, blood and toil, without which the freedoms that we have today would not exist—might start to fade. This morning, I met a 99-year-old gentleman who fought in the second world war. Although he was still quite sharp, his frailty reminded me of how easily those memories could slip from the public’s consciousness. Stories of the service and sacrifice of many from all parts of the United Kingdom and all over the Commonwealth will later simply not be able  to be told first hand in the way that he told me this morning about his experience during the war. Vital lessons about the fragility of freedom and democracy and the need to cherish and nurture them, to stand up for them, and for allies to sometimes come together and fight and die for them, might also fade.
History has so much to teach us, but only if we can access it. Stories of service and sacrifice—such as that of 20-year-old James Leaning, the private from my home county of Hertfordshire, whom I described at the beginning of my comments—have so many lessons for future generations, but only if we preserve and cherish them, and pass them on. That is why we must always support the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and the extraordinary work that it does.

Luke Pollard: It is a privilege to speak in this debate, particularly as we approach the 80th anniversary of D-day in June and the Commonwealth War Graves Commission’s Legacy of Liberation campaign. I look forward to contributions from Members on all sides of the House in this debate. During War Graves Week, as always, we remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice to protect others and the freedoms that we enjoy today. It is our duty to tell their stories and to honour their service.
I begin by echoing and joining the Defence Secretary in paying tribute to the work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and its staff not only in the UK, but around the world. Our war graves and memorials must be properly protected, cared for and respected. For over a century, the commission has done so much at home and abroad to honour the men and women of the UK and the Commonwealth who lost their lives in the two world wars. Thanks to the commission’s work, sites of remembrance for 1.7 million individuals are properly cared for. It is the custodian of our shared global history as well as of our local history.
I would like to pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) for their work as commissioners, representing Parliament on the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. I think their work reminds us of the genuine cross-party support that the commission enjoys and will continue to enjoy.
In my home city of Plymouth, our shared history is told by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission at a number of cemeteries, including Weston Mill, Efford, Ford Park and the Plymouth naval memorial on Plymouth Hoe. That naval memorial, where I know a number of Members from both sides have attended services, remembers all those lost at sea. This year, we remember the 70th anniversary of the unveiling by Princess Margaret of the extension for those we lost in world war two. I pay tribute to the staff of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission who keep that memorial, and all memorials at home and abroad, in such a proud and decent condition. Each name on the war memorial was a person with a family, hopes and dreams, who made the ultimate sacrifice for our nation.
One particular cemetery that sticks in my mind is not run by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. It is a war grave in Wantage gardens on North Road West in Plymouth, which has the headstones of child sailors to tell their story. It is called the No Place memorial, and it is a memorial for Plymouth’s fallen heroes. It is a small graveyard, and many of those it remembers were 15, 16 or 17 when they died. One of them, Edward Pike, was just 15 when he died on 16 November 1894 on HMS Lion. Through that memorial, we keep the flame of their memory alive, and what strikes me most about that memorial is their ranks. All the ranks of those who died are on the memorial, and Edward’s rank was “Boy”. Telling his story and telling the story of all the other people alongside him in that cemetery is a way of not only remembering that sacrifice, but keeping that flame alive, as well as the reasons that he and others went to sea.
As someone who represents a naval city, I had the privilege of attending the National Memorial Arboretum in Staffordshire for the unveiling of the submariner memorial in 2022. Almost 6,000 submariners have lost their lives in the 120 years since the submarine service was formed, and as the son of a submariner, this is particularly close to my heart. I thank the staff of the National Memorial Arboretum for all they do. They welcome 300,000 visitors a year to their 400 memorials, including over 20,000 young people. Just as we on both sides encourage Members to join the armed forces parliamentary scheme, may I encourage them to go to the National Memorial Arboretum? It is a profoundly moving place to remember people who have given the ultimate sacrifice.

James Gray: I am glad the hon. Member is so proud of the National Arboretum Memorial at Alrewas. He may not know—the House may not know—that Mr Speaker is currently considering the possibility of having a parliamentary memorial there. I have been on the committee considering it, and we are very nearly at the stage of recommending one particular stone to the Speaker. I hope that Members will very soon be able to go to the National Arboretum Memorial and see a memorial to parliamentarians who gave their lives.

Luke Pollard: I thank the hon. Member for that intervention, and I think that telling our story, and telling the story of all those who served and gave their lives for the freedoms we enjoy, is time well spent. For anyone who has not been to the National Memorial Arboretum, it is a visit worth paying to hear the stories  and to see the way in which different units from different parts of our armed forces remember those who fell in different ways. It really is a very special place.
It is vital that we support the efforts of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission to reach out to communities, particularly to engage with younger generations to pass on our history as the world wars recede further into the past. We commend the commission for making education and outreach a key priority in its latest—very good—strategy. I am reminded of the fantastic interactive events organised for young people in Plymouth for the 80th anniversary of the Blitz, as well as tours and talks across the country during this War Graves Week. I also encourage Members to share the library of free learning resources on the commission website, including guides on how to research relatives and other Commonwealth casualties. Looking forward to the future, I welcome the commission’s strategy towards 2039, not least for the serious thought that has been given to how to engage young people with new technology in a digital age.
As we mark War Graves Week, we must recognise and honour fully the regiments and the troops drawn from across the Commonwealth, from Africa, Asia and the Caribbean, and remember the great contributions and sacrifice from so many of them that helped forge modern Britain and the freedoms we enjoy today. As the Commonwealth War Graves Commission found  in its 2021 report on the historical inequalities in commemoration, an estimated 45,000 to 54,000 casualties, predominantly Indian, east and west African, Egyptian and Somali personnel, are or were commemorated unequally. I want to praise the work of our shadow Foreign Secretary my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) who spoke out about this in his documentary “The Unremembered” in 2019 to make the case that everyone who served in our military, regardless of background and where they came from, should be remembered for the sacrifice they made.
Finally, I make one further point. The Commonwealth War Graves Commission does superb work and remembers people whose graves are on land but its remit does not extend to those who died at sea. As Devonport’s MP and coming from a naval family, I want to place it on record that those who died at sea and have no resting place other than the ocean should also be remembered in War Graves Week.
In 2018 I raised concerns about the second world war wrecks in the east Java sea, in particular HMS Exeter, a Devonport-based world war two heavy cruiser that had been looted and scavenged. As a war grave, HMS Exeter —and indeed HMS Prince of Wales, HMS Electra, HMS Encounter, and Australian and Dutch ships that went down in the battle with the Japanese navy there —should be a final place of rest, but those ships have been scavenged and in the case of HMS Exeter almost completely removed from the seabed.

James Gray: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important point about these ships that went down just off Indonesia; some 4,800 people died on board and they are not commemorated at the site of their death at all—they are the only service people who are not. The same incidentally applies to those who died in Dogger Bank, where minerals are now being lifted out, greatly risking interfering with the people who terribly sadly  died there. There is an argument for the Commonwealth War Graves Commission to at least consider looking again at war graves at sea.

Luke Pollard: I am grateful for that intervention and the way in which the hon. Gentleman remembers those who died in the Dogger Bank.
In 2008 HMS Kent placed a memorial next to where HMS Exeter went down. There are ways of remembering those who died at sea as well as protecting wrecks. We could look at how our allies, the United States of America, Australia and the Netherlands for example, do things slightly differently. But we should be making the case that the stories of all should be told regardless of whether they died on land or at sea and that there is a place for that. We are seeing that in the debates around war graves; it is a really important aspect of this that we remember these people, and the war memorial I spoke about on Plymouth Hoe remembers those who died at sea as well as on land. It is important we remember all of them.

Matthew Offord: On that point, the House is aware of my interest in marine archaeology. I have asked Ministers this question repeatedly, and I think they are correct in saying that the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986 and the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973 afford protection to those lost at sea.

Luke Pollard: I am grateful for that intervention. I am not certain that this is the precise moment when I should be going into the finer details of wreck protection and the debate around that, but certainly in War Graves Week we need to be telling the stories of all who served and all who died, and that is an important part of what the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and other groups are doing. It is worth placing on record our recognition of that work in this debate.
Today and always we remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice to protect others. Service in our armed forces is the ultimate public service. The Commonwealth War Graves Commission helps strengthen the bond between those who serve and the country they serve to protect. Labour is fully committed to building on this if given the opportunity of being in government later this year.

Philip Dunne: It is a great honour to take part in this debate. I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), and I welcome his support for the work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and the remarks that he made. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—the chairman of the commission—and congratulate him on wearing the newly designed corporate tie. I particularly thank him, the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip for providing Government time for this debate on such an important topic.
I am also deeply honoured to be one of the  two serving parliamentary commissioners of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, and I look forward to the comments from my other commissioner, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), shortly. Having parliamentary  representation on the commission marks a tradition going back to the origins of the commission, more than 100 years ago.
Our debate comes in the midst of War Graves Week but is also a timely reflection of the events in June to commemorate the liberation of Europe with the 80th anniversary of the D-day landings. Many of our constituents and many in this House will have had forebears, including parents, who served during world war two. Last autumn, I visited Salerno in Italy, where Commonwealth and American forces landed to form a beachhead on the European mainland in late 1943. More than 1,800 servicemen are commemorated there. It was a particularly poignant trip for me, since my grandfather won his military cross there with the Commandos, and my father-in-law wrote an account  of the landing for the liberation of Italy. Reverting to  the Normandy landings, my wife’s cousin led the  Special Service Brigade, which took the Pegasus Bridge, accompanied by his brigade piper. More locally, one of my predecessors as MP for Ludlow, Lieutenant-Colonel Uvedale Corbett, won the distinguished service order for his actions during the Normandy landings and breakout.
All of us will have connections to those who served during the second world war, so the work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission should be important to us all. The commission cares for some 23,000 war memorials and cemeteries across 153 countries and territories around the globe, helping us all to honour and commemorate the 1.7 million Commonwealth servicemen and women who lost their life through war. Few experiences are more moving or evocative than visiting any of our battlefield cemeteries and seeing the ranks of the iconic headstones that mark the graves of the fallen, so magnificently maintained by the dedicated commission staff. In reality, the work of the commission spans much more than even that.
Along with the wide range of the commission’s historic preservation of world-class monuments and millions of headstones, it also has world-class expertise in horticulture and the research and record management that goes into sustaining our database of millions of casualties. Another of its most moving and impressive roles is in the continuing recovery, forensic identification and respectful reburial of the remains of the fallen, where possible with military honours. That still goes on, month in, month out. During War Graves Week, we can all take time—I urge colleagues across the House to do so—to visit sites in each of our constituencies.

Jonathan Edwards: Yesterday I visited Llandingat cemetery at the church in Llandovery, where there are several Commonwealth graves. I worked with Ryan Jones, who is a volunteer with the commission. Will the right hon. Gentleman pay tribute to the volunteers for their work in places such as Carmarthenshire looking after these graves?

Philip Dunne: I am delighted to, and the hon. Gentleman pre-empts one of the comments I will make. He is absolutely right, and the volunteering element to preserving the quality of the headstones is a relatively recent phenomenon. I am sure we will touch on that in a   few moments. There is plenty of scope to add more volunteers. Indeed, many Members might want to consider volunteering to maintain gravestones in their own constituencies.
In south Shropshire, more than 200 casualties from world war one and world war two are buried at 74 locations across the Ludlow constituency, with more than 30 commemorated at Bridgnorth cemetery, the largest site in the constituency. Like the hon. Member, I paid my respects at one of those sites last Saturday, in the deconsecrated churchyard of St Leonards in Ludlow, where volunteers help keep the war graves in as reasonable order as possible in a churchyard that is no longer active. War Graves Week, inaugurated only in 2021, stands as a good opportunity to highlight all the work that the Commonwealth War Graves Commission does around the world, none of which would be possible without both our generous member nation funders and, of course, our amazing staff and volunteers.
With my wider interest in the environment, I would like to touch briefly on the commission’s work from a sustainability and horticultural perspective. There can be few organisations in the world with a responsibility for sustaining the environment with such a diverse global footprint, managing sites in all climates, at various elevations, and with one of the widest ranges of flora and fauna. Horticulturalists working for the commission care for many native plant species in our sites across the world. While that means that the commission is a curator with exceptional knowledge about those plants, we are also very much challenged by global climate change. The commission has committed to achieve net zero by 2050 and is utilising new approaches to horticulture and memorial maintenance to reflect the changing climate while reducing the use of pesticides and herbicides as well as fossil fuels.
I place on record my thanks as a member of the commission’s audit committee to my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary. As he mentioned in his opening speech, as chairman of the Commission he showed real leadership earlier this year in securing a three-year funding settlement from donor nations, led by the Ministry of Defence. We are extremely grateful to him for that, not least because that provides certainty of funding to continue the commission’s fine work through the inevitable uncertainty of a general election and a potential spending review.
Of course, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission’s work is not immune from the impact of war today. Sadly, many of the places in which the commission looks after war memorials and cemeteries suffer from the instability and repercussions of conflict. Our sites in Gaza have been no exception. I join the Defence Secretary in paying tribute to the work of many people both here in the UK and in our high commissions in the region in helping to ensure the safe evacuation of our staff and their families. Unfortunately, our restoration work on site will have to wait while access remains impossible due to the war.
We face similar challenges in securing safe access to our cemeteries in some other places, currently including Iraq, Iran, Yemen and Sudan, but our commitment to those sites is undiminished. I know that we will  return to carry out our important work as soon as conditions allow.
In three weeks, we will be marking the 80th anniversary of the D-day landings. This is an important opportunity to remember the contribution of UK and Commonwealth soldiers in the liberation of Europe from the Nazis and to encourage the next generation to take up responsibility for remembrance. Since this may well be the last significant milestone commemoration of the D-day landings attended by veterans of the campaign, it is a particularly poignant commemoration. It also highlights just how important it is that younger generations take up the mantle of remembrance. The commission has therefore placed a great emphasis on involving schoolchildren in the major programme of events in both the UK and France on 5 and 6 June involving veterans, serving personnel and children. Normandy, where the commission maintains 116 cemeteries and memorials that mark the graves of 25,000 fallen service personnel, will of course be the centre point of the commemorations.
The commission, recognising the need to maintain our relevance to future generations, has spent much of the last year looking further ahead at developing its strategy towards 2039, as both opening speeches referred to. That sets a clear path to the 100th anniversary of world war two, increasing our collaboration with parallel organisations in other countries both to foster reconciliation between former adversaries and to inform younger generations about the human cost of war. That is all the more poignant and relevant given that the first state-on-state war at scale since 1945 is going on in Europe right now.
As we move beyond lifetime memory of the world wars, the environment in which the commission does its work is changing. Younger generations are not as directly or personally connected as older generations to world war one and world war two. Clearly, that represents a challenge, but it is also the true test of our commitment to honour the fallen—one that I hope future generations will meet, just as previous generations have.
I thank all Members here today for their support for War Graves Week and for the important work that the Commonwealth War Graves Commission undertakes around the world. The serried ranks of gravestones, so well maintained by the commission, leave a clear impression on all who see them of the sacrifice of the fallen around the world. They serve as a reminder to us all of the immense human cost of war, and that the legacy of those who gave their lives depends on facing down the resurgent threats to global stability that we face today.

Allan Dorans: It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne). The Scottish National party proudly supports the valuable work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission in its efforts to ensure that those who died in service as a result of conflict are commemorated. It is vital that we preserve the memories of the members of our armed services and those of Commonwealth countries who answered the call to serve in numerous conflicts across the globe, and who paid the ultimate sacrifice. Like other Members, I pay tribute to the fantastic work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, which maintains, manages and preserves war graves in more than 23,000 locations in 150 countries, and more than 1.1 million headstones across the world.
The War Graves Commission offers a wonderfully unique service to enable people to identify family members who have been killed in conflicts, and to locate their last resting place, memorial or headstone. I have benefited from that by being able to identify my great uncle, Corporal William Dorans, who in 1914 was an Army reservist and was called to the colours on the outbreak of war, and served in the 1st Battalion, Royal Scots Fusiliers. It was one of the first British battalions to be deployed in Belgium to stop the German advance into that country. It was immediately posted to the frontline, on the Ypres salient, and took part in the first battle of Ypres against the German army, involving both offensive and defensive actions, including bombardments and brutal hand-to-hand fighting, which resulted in thousands of casualties on both sides.
On 13 November 1914, Corporal Dorans was sadly officially reported missing in action and believed dead. His body was never recovered from the quagmire that was the battlefield. He is commemorated with honour at the Ypres Menin Gate memorial, along with more than 54,580 other servicemen from the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth countries killed in that area who have no known graves. I visited Menin Gate a few years ago to pay my respects to my great uncle and all other members of the armed forces who gave their lives for their country. I was moved by the tribute that takes place under the Menin Gate arches at 8 o’clock every night, by the buglers of the Last Post Association, who sound the “Last Post” as a unique homage to all those who lost their lives. That tradition has taken place continuously since 1928, on more than 33,000 occasions.
I also took the opportunity to visit Tyne Cot cemetery, which has almost 12,000 graves of British and Commonwealth soldiers and a number of smaller grave sites, which are immaculately maintained and presented by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. The enormity of the scale and numbers of those killed can only be appreciated by a visit to these graveyards. It is a very emotional experience.
Closer to home, I commend and bring to the attention of the House the work of the Girvan and District Great War Project. It was established in 2013 by a couple, Lorna and Ritchie Conaghan, both unpaid volunteers, initially to research and identify local men who left the area to go to war and never returned. Through their tremendous efforts researching, identifying and recording at least 450 local men, wherever possible they have produced individual service records for each of the men, which are available to their families as a tribute to their service and sacrifice. They included a number who had not previously been commemorated on local war memorials, including the local men who had lost their lives in the armed forces while serving in the armies of Commonwealth countries, including Australia and Canada. It is absolutely fabulous, and it has also initiated numerous other local projects, including the erection of memorial benches, exhibitions of wartime uniforms and weapons, and a memorial wildflower garden. It involves local children in various projects, including the production of brightly painted poppy stones placed on the graves of those who died in wars to enable easy identification by people walking through the cemetery—what a fabulous idea. In addition, it works to keep alive the memory of non-Commonwealth personnel and those killed during times of war with a connection to Girvan. I will give just one example, although there are several.
On 4 November 1917, a French merchant ship, the SS Longwy, was torpedoed 20 miles off the coast of Girvan, in my constituency, with the loss of 31 lives. Three of the bodies washed up ashore along the coastline near Girvan and were then buried in the town’s Doune cemetery. The other 28 French sailors remain in their underwater tomb without commemoration, other than the three simple crosses marking the graves of the men who were washed ashore. There is, as yet, no memorial to the remainder of the crew, either in France or here in Scotland. I am pleased to say that following significant fundraising activities both in Scotland and in France, £12,000 has been raised to erect a permanent memorial overlooking the sea in memory of all 31 sailors who were killed. Work starts on the creation of a memorial this week, which will be completed by October this year.
One group of people who died during the world wars and are often overlooked are those who served in the merchant navy. In August last year, I was privileged to attend a ceremony in Girvan to unveil a new memorial to commemorate merchant seamen born locally who died at sea while serving their country. New memorials such as this also commemorate all those who died at sea with no known grave and remind us of the vital contribution of the merchant navy in times of conflict.
The best way we can preserve the legacy of war graves, keeping the memorials relevant and meaningful for future generations, and commemorating the sacrifice made by so many, is without doubt through education. Just a month ago, Claire Horton CBE, director general of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, said:
“We are at an undeniable turning point for the legacy of commemoration. This year’s landmark anniversary may be the final major commemoration attended by veterans of D-Day, and as such represents a unique opportunity to pass on the torch of commemoration from the generation who fought in the two World Wars and ensure commemoration of their legacy endures for generations to come. As we look to the future, better education must play a vital role in ensuring that the lessons of the First and Second World War are remembered, and that the importance of commemoration is understood by everyone, whether they have a direct and personal connection to the World Wars or not. Our mission is for the legacy of those who died fighting for our freedoms to inspire a world free from conflict.”
I could not agree more. Education is the key, and the importance of every generation knowing the cost of war in lives lost is central.
Finally, to raise awareness and help with the preservation of memories in out-of-the-way parts of towns and villages, and to put them fully into the public arena where all, especially our children, can see and feel them, we might every year project names on to the walls of public buildings to great effect, as happened on the walls of the Scottish Parliament in May 2020. That could be done relatively easily and replicated across the country, similar to the poppies displayed on the Elizabeth Tower during Remembrance Day last year.
The Commonwealth War Graves Commission is a wonderful organisation fully deserving of continued financial support from the Government and the support of the public through donations to enable it to keep alive the memory of the sacrifice of the millions of  men and women who laid down their lives for their country. We must also continue the commemoration of  Remembrance Sunday, and wear our poppies with pride in November every year to remember those who have gone before us and did not return home. The best and most effective way of ensuring that these memories are not lost is to educate, which needs to be done in a manner that is accessible and relevant to children so that they can recognise the sacrifice made by so many  to enable us to enjoy the precious freedoms that we  have today.
Let me end by quoting two lines of a poem with which all Members will be familiar:
“At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.”

Jeremy Quin: I am grateful for the opportunity not only to hear the erudite words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), but to thank him and the other members of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission for all their work. I look forward to hearing from the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) very shortly. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Allan Dorans), who spoke so movingly about his great-uncle, Corporal Dorans. I am glad that he mentioned the daily commemoration at the Menin Gate. It barely let up until the second world war and resumed as soon as the opportunity was available, and it is wonderful that it continues to this day.
As the hon. Gentleman said—and, indeed, as was said by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard)—this is an issue on which the whole House will stand united, and it is sobering to think that previous generations stood here united in grief. We are surrounded by the commemorations of Members who fell in the wars, and elsewhere in this place are commemorated the sons and daughters of Members—including the sons of the then Prime Minister, Herbert Asquith, and the then leader of the Labour party, Arthur Henderson, who were killed on the same day in the battle of Loos in 1915.
The scale of the loss in this country and across what was then the empire required a response like no other. It was the hardest of all tasks. How could anyone rise to the challenge of fittingly remembering so many, with different faiths and different traditions, and from so many corners of the earth? The extraordinary legacy of those—including Lutyens, Kenyon, Ware, Baker and Kipling—who applied themselves to that vital work, most of them carrying their own personal grief, lives on. No commemoration could ever be equal to that conflict or those that followed, but it did its best, on behalf of this nation, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India and the whole Commonwealth, to remember the sacrifice of all and the sacrifice of every individual, embracing the principle of equality of commemoration. It is vital for us to embrace that principle, novel in its day, at every opportunity in remembering everyone who fell in common cause. In doing so, we must recognise as inexcusable—as did the former Defence Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace)— those occasions when in the past we fell short of that absolute principle.
The engraving that was ultimately not adopted but was initially intended to be inscribed around the Stone of Remembrance was taken from Ecclesiastes:
“Their bodies are buried in peace; but their name liveth for evermore.”
For the fact that where known graves exist, the bodies of those brave men and women do lie in peace and their names, whether commemorated on a memorial or on a gravestone, will be remembered for evermore, we owe an enormous debt to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. As was suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), if we in this House could possibly thank every one of its 1,300 employees in each of the 200 languages that they speak between them, we would feel honoured to do so. For the work that they do to fulfil our sacred obligation—not least, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow mentioned, their work in continuing to uncover remains and bury them with due honour—they have our gratitude and respect.
During my research for this speech, I found it sobering to try to find the number of graves and, of course, to be reminded that that number grows year upon year. Every one of us, I am sure, will have stood before the Comme memorial with its 72,000 names, visited Tyne Cot with its 12,000 graves, and, sometimes even more poignantly, visited the quiet and small cemeteries scattered across Flanders fields. What makes them so poignant is the sheer scale of collective loss, with each individual headstone or name commemorating a person who loved and was loved. They are remembered by their loved ones in the briefest but most profound of epitaphs. How fitting it is that over 100 years since the war to end all wars, schoolchildren from our constituencies make annual pilgrimages to recognise and remember. It is moving indeed to see young people—barely younger than those who fell, and showing the same exuberance and love of life that those who died would once have claimed—falling silent as they recognise the enormity of just one cemetery, which is only one of the 23,000 cemeteries and memorials looked after by the CWGC.
Of course, the commission’s direct duties, or duties working for the MOD, stretch far beyond the western front. I have been immensely moved by the beautifully kept calmness of the cemetery in Singapore, the rising heat of dawn in the commission’s cemetery in New Delhi as we collectively commemorated Anzac Day, and the knowledge that in the blustery South Atlantic, the Falkland Islanders will, with love, protect and commemorate those buried above San Carlos Water, who gave everything for their liberation.
Nor do the responsibilities of the CWGC end with cemeteries. There are many individual graves in British churchyards where the fallen are remembered closer to home. The same is true of the solitary grave of Ronald Maxwell of the Hong Kong Volunteer Defence Corps, who was buried where he fell on 23 December 1941, aged 22, beside St John’s Cathedral in Hong Kong.
I was pleased to hear the words of the Secretary of State about his personal commitment to the three-year uplift in funding. The commission needs that assurance to ensure that remembrance is a living legacy for our nation, and I welcome it.
We are approaching the 80th anniversary of D-day—a date of specific significance for the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, which refers to it as the Legacy of Liberation 80. The commission is right to say  that the 80th anniversary commemorations may mark a tipping point between first-hand memory and national memory, and that the role of education will be ever more important in the years to come. I would therefore like my last words in this debate to be not my own, but those of Robert Piper, late of the Royal Sussex Regiment and the Royal Signals. He is a 99-year-old Normandy veteran who joined up at the age of 15, and I am proud to have him as a constituent. He retains an excellent sense of humour. When advised by his doctor that he had bad news and that Robert had cancer, his response was to say, “I went to Normandy. What do you mean, bad news? Every day is a bonus.” Robert once said in our excellent local magazine, All About Horsham:
“I have returned to Europe and stood in the middle of cemeteries filled with hundreds of soldiers, and I ask myself the question—why them, not us?”
That is a question to which these cemeteries should always give rise, because it reminds us of our obligation to remember, to be thankful, and to try to be worthy of the sacrifices made.

Diana R. Johnson: I pay tribute to the Chair of the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for Horsham (Sir Jeremy Quin), for the speech that he has just made. I agree with every word he said, and I thought he put it incredibly eloquently. I thank the Government for finding time for this debate, and I thank the Defence Secretary, who is obviously a very busy man, for opening the debate this afternoon.
I have the enormous privilege of representing Parliament on the commission, along with the right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), whom I commend him for his excellent speech. I note that earlier we had in the Chamber one of the previous representatives on the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), although he is not in his place at the moment. I know that he was incredibly well respected and still plays an important role on the Commonwealth War Graves Foundation, which is the charitable arm of the commission.
I am very keen to talk about the outstanding work that the commission does and the dedicated people around the world who work, on our behalf, on commemoration every day. As we know, this debate is all the more timely as we approach the 80th anniversary of the D-day landings, and with the commission’s Legacy of Liberation 80 campaign. We have already heard that the commission was established by royal charter in 1917. It is a global organisation caring for war graves and memorials at 23,000 locations in 153 countries and territories, including some of the most war-torn areas of the world—Gaza at the moment, unfortunately, as well as Libya, Somalia and many other places.
The Defence Secretary is the chair of the commission, and among the other commissioners are the high commissioners from Canada, Australia, India, New Zealand and South Africa. They all help to oversee and, importantly, fund the organisation, and I think everyone is grateful for the funding settlement agreed in recent months by all the member Governments. I would also like to pay tribute to our current vice-chair, Peter Hudson, to the director general, Claire Horton, and to the  president of the commission, Her Royal Highness the Princess Royal.
The commission commemorates almost 1.7 million individuals, ensuring that Commonwealth men and  women who died during the two world wars are commemorated in a manner befitting all that they gave to secure our freedom and our very survival. Of course, this history is personal to all of us who had family serving in these campaigns. I think back to my dad, Eric Johnson, who served in world war two in the Royal Navy on HMS Begum; my father-in-law, Victor Morton, who served on HMS Ramillies as it shelled enemy positions at 5.30 am on D-day to help make the landings possible; my mother, Ruth Johnson, who worked in a munitions factory in Cheshire; and my mother-in-law, Joyce Morton, who served in the WAAF at Bentley Priory in Stanmore—or, as it was better known at that time, Fighter Command. Thankfully, they all survived the second world war, but so many did not, and that  is why it is so important for their families that we commemorate all those who lost their lives.
I represent a Hull constituency in East Yorkshire, an area that historically has made a great contribution to our armed forces, as I am reminded every time I walk along those ranks of Portland stone graves and see so many from the Yorkshire regiments. Of course, Hull’s civilian population was also on the frontline in the total war of world war two. Commemoration is important to me, to my constituents and, of course, to the nation. When I visited the Runnymede Air Forces Memorial, I was really moved to see the name of Hull’s own Amy Johnson. First Officer Amy Johnson was, as we all know, the first woman pilot to fly alone from Britain to Australia. She went missing in 1941 when flying on a mission over the Thames estuary for the Air Transport Auxiliary. Her body was never found, but her name is on that memorial at Runnymede.
I have been to many of the sites around the UK and Europe over the years, but I want to say a few words about a visit that I paid just last week while on a trip to Singapore with the Home Affairs Committee. In the heat of the afternoon, along with other MPs on the delegation I visited the Kranji war cemetery, where the commission’s regional manager, Dennis Shim, and his team do exemplary work. We laid a wreath and remembered the fallen. I want to pay tribute to Dennis and his team because during covid there were very strict regulations about access to the cemetery and it was unfortunately in quite a state when the gardeners were allowed back in to do their work. I have to say that it looked absolutely wonderful last week. It was a real tribute to the hard work of the gardeners and the commission.
We know that 4,461 Commonwealth casualties of the second world war are buried at Kranji, plus some from world war one, and the Singapore memorial at the site bears the names of 24,000 Commonwealth casualties who have no known grave. This of course includes a number of the prisoners of war involved in the construction of the notorious Burma-Thailand railway, known as the death railway. While our attention will be on Normandy this June, those who were involved in the far east campaign should of course be in our thoughts too. Kranji is just one example of the work of the commission, which has a global estate run by a multinational and multilingual workforce of about 1,300, the vast majority  of whom are gardeners and stonemasons. They are incredibly skilled men and women. The gardeners I met in Kranji last week came from India and Bangladesh.
Since the commission’s establishment, we have constructed 2,500 war cemeteries and plots, erected headstones over graves and, where the remains are missing, inscribed the names of the dead on permanent memorials. More than 1 million burials are now commemorated at military and civil sites around the world, from Canada, Belgium and France to Ukraine, Georgia and Papua New Guinea. The workforce looks after these sites with dedication, and it is therefore only fitting that we look after the workforce with similar care. I was very relieved to hear of the safe evacuation to Egypt of the team working in Gaza, for which I again thank the Defence Secretary. Of course, many other commission sites face dangers from current conflicts around the world, and we need to have the commission’s staff in our mind and prayers.
The commission’s work has developed in recent years, as we focus on amending records, searching for missing names, building new memorials and addressing historical inequalities and injustices in commemoration. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), I pay tribute to the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) and Professor Michèle Barrett, who brought the commission’s attention to some of the ways in which we have not commemorated as we should have done. A key principle, as the Chair of the Defence Committee said, is that all who fell must be remembered equally.
When we ask the public about the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, they will of course talk about the cemeteries in northern France, Belgium or Italy, but we have an important job to do of commemorating those who fought but have not yet been properly acknowledged. As part of our non-commemorations work, we have, for example, recently begun construction of a memorial in Cape Town to honour some 1,700 black South Africans who fell while serving in Africa in world war one, and who have until now not been commemorated. Other parts of our non-commemorations work focuses on west Africa, Kenya, Egypt and India.
We also have a duty to ensure that our sites remain well visited, so that remembrance of the war dead continues, by creating information centres, volunteering opportunities and education programmes designed to engage and educate generations to come. I saw today that the Prime Minister handed the torch of liberation to veteran Peter Kent. The torch will now travel around the United Kingdom before travelling on to Normandy in time for the D-day events in France.
The commission’s Legacy of Liberation campaign presents a momentous opportunity to commemorate the 80th anniversary of pivotal world war two events, with a special emphasis on D-day and the momentous events that laid the foundations for a free Europe. The commission aims to create a renewed emphasis on the act of commemoration and the important work of bridging the past and present, ensuring that the stories of those who fell are passed on to younger generations. The public can also access interactive tours online of the commission’s key cemeteries, featuring stories from those in the battles, details of commission events and much more.
This debate takes place in War Graves Week, an annual event in May to draw attention to the commission’s work. The commission is organising 277 events and tours in over 160 locations across 15 countries worldwide, and I hope that Members will get involved in those in their constituency. Just like the work of the Royal British Legion and Help for Heroes, the commission’s work continues all year round, every year. That is why I encourage Members across the House, and of course the new Members sitting on these Benches within the next six months, to take an interest in the upkeep and the incredible history of the war graves in their constituency. They will find so many valuable lessons for the future, and much to be proud of.

Bob Stewart: In late June and early July 1943, the allies in north Africa were preparing to invade Sicily, which would be the first piece of territory in Europe to be taken back from Nazi Germany. In 2nd Battalion the Cheshire Regiment, in the 50th Infantry Division, there were two good friends: Lieutenant David Cox, an Oxbridge graduate aged 23; and Peter Martin, then a Captain commanding A Company. One morning, David told Peter that he had a terrible and very vivid dream in which he learned that he was going to die in a place called Catania. He had never heard of it and neither had Peter. Peter reassured David that it was just a dream, and he should think no more about it.
Shortly thereafter, the Cheshires received their orders for Operation Husky, the invasion of Sicily. To his absolute horror, David learned that an objective of the 50th Infantry Division was a place called Catania—the very same name that he had dreamed about. It shocked him to the core, and of course he became seriously worried that he was going to die there.
In early July, the Cheshires landed at Jig Green beach, just south of Syracuse, in Sicily. The landings went well and not too much resistance was encountered. David was, of course, petrified by the premonition, and Peter repeatedly tried to reassure him that it was just a dream. About a week later, the Cheshires took part in taking Catania, and after some hard fighting, in which both officers played considerable part, the town was captured. With the town taken by the allies, Peter said to David that his worries had been unjustified and he should stop fretting. Naturally, David was massively relieved. The next day, 16 August, the battalion was tasked with moving through a minefield. David was the only officer with mine-clearing experience, and he led the effort to make a path through it. Tragically, a mine exploded as he was doing so and he was killed—how flipping awful!
That story came from my mentor, whom I met in 1969, when I, too, joined the Cheshires. By then, Peter was a major general and colonel of the regiment. I held him in huge regard, and he guided me as a very young officer. Peter never forgot David, and visited his grave in Sicily whenever he could. The words of the Reverend Geoffrey Studdert Kennedy, Woodbine Willie, who won the Military Cross in the first world war, hold true:
“There are many kinds of sorrow
In this world of Love and Hate,
But there is no sterner sorrow
Than a soldier’s for his mate.”
I have used those words myself. David’s story inspired me to do the same and visit his grave, and I have been there several times in the last few years. I have a photograph with me, but I am not allowed to show it. [Interruption.] Okay, I will show it, Mr Deputy Speaker—here it is.
David’s grave is in the Catania Commonwealth war cemetery, which contains 2,135 burials from the second world war, 112 of them unidentified. It is in a beautiful location—I will let right hon. and hon. Members glance at the photo—with Mount Etna behind it, steaming away, an active volcano. It is a fabulous location. The cemetery, like most CWGC locations abroad, makes anyone that visits it feel humbled and filled with awe. Nothing can bring back the men buried there, but at least their memory is honoured properly. That might be of some solace to the families and friends of those who rest there.
However, I am slightly concerned about one aspect of the work of the CWGC: what appears to happen sometimes in our country. For instance, in south-east London, Hither Green cemetery contains over 200 war graves. The graves that are located together—more than 10—are looked after, but there are many more individual graves, such as that of Private Terence Adam, who was killed at Ballykelly in Northern Ireland on 6 December 1982. I was the incident commander when 11 soldiers, as well as six civilians, were murdered by the Irish National Liberation Army. Terence’s grave is on its own, but it is looked after by my friend and former Army colleague George Szwejkowski, who also personally cares for over 50 other graves in that cemetery. He is one of many more civilians volunteering to do that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) said. George is accredited to the CWGC and tends those graves for no money, simply because he feels that the poor devils who lie underground there deserve to be hugely respected.
I am afraid that I have seen quite a few individual war graves in the UK that suffer from a lack of care. I know that solving that problem is difficult for the CWGC because its resources are finite. It does its best, and there is no easy solution. It is not the fault of the CWGC, but I wish there were a way for all graves of service personnel, wherever they are, to be kept to the normal excellent standards that the CWGC sets.
In summary, I pay huge tribute to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. I thank our two colleagues who are commissioners. The CWGC does its best to ensure that those of us who live today are reminded of those normally very young men, and sometimes young women, who lost everything before they had really started their adult life. Those people did a huge service for us; we are here because of them. I thank the Commonwealth War Graves Commission for looking after them.

Chris Evans: I begin by thanking the right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) for their service as commissioners on the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. I also wish to comment on the speeches of the right hon. Members for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) and for Horsham (Sir Jeremy Quin). The words that  they have spoken today not only honoured the war dead, but showed a special passion and commitment to those people.
In particular, I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Beckenham who has seen sights that none of us in this place could possibly imagine. I want to place on record my thanks to him for what he has done for our armed forces, and for the service and commitment that he continues to give to them. I shadowed the right hon. Member for Horsham for three years. I heard many of his speeches, but none was as passionate or as dignified as the one that he has just given to the House, and he can be truly proud of those people that he spoke about today.
In debates such as this, I often feel full of regret. My grandfather has been dead now for 27 years. He served in the second world war for the Scottish Highlanders. I never got to sit down and ask him why a Welshman from the south Wales valleys found himself in the Scottish Highlanders during the second world war. But, like so many other people, he rarely talked about his experiences during the war.
It is interesting that we commemorate War Graves Week this week. I think of Harry Patch, the last fighting Tommy, who died some 15 years ago. If anybody wants to read about the brutality of war, they should read a passage from his book, “The Last Fighting Tommy”. He described finding a young lad from A Company, who had been ripped from his shoulder to his waist. He was beyond human help. His words were: “Shoot me”. But before Patch could get his revolver out to put the lad out of his misery, he died. His last words were simply, “Mother”. You cannot read those words and not realise that each and every one of those graves that the Commonwealth War Graves Commission upholds has a very personal human story. Even though many of them would have been dead now for hundreds of years, the fact is that they were once somebody’s wife, somebody’s husband, somebody’s lover, somebody’s brother, and they all will have personal stories.
People who know me know that I can often bore for Britain about football. My interest has always been in the 1960s and 1970s, but, over the past year, I have been very drawn to the Football Battalion, also known as the 17th Middlesex Regiment and the 23rd Middlesex Regiment, which recruited footballers and supporters to fight in world war one, where they fought in the Somme and Passchendaele. There are stories of people such as Walter Tull, the very first black man ever to command a company in the British Army. He joined the 17th Middlesex Regiment, but was invalided out for what we know today as post-traumatic stress disorder. He went back. He was commissioned as an officer for 23rd Middlesex Regiment. He died at the battle of the Somme on 25 March 1918, at the end of the war. His body was never recovered—even though his fellow goalkeeper from Leicester Fosse, Tom Billingham, tried to save him, he could not find his body. He is believed to be buried in the Somme somewhere. His name is commemorated with the 34,000 others at the memorial in northern France.
I also want to talk about two friends, Richard McFadden and William Jonas. They grew up together in Scotland. They were as close as brothers and were both strikers  with Clapton Orient. McFadden ended up a company sergeant. When they were together in a trench under heavy shell fire, Jonas jumped out and said, “Good luck to my love and my wife, Mary Jane”, and handed something to McFadden. When McFadden opened his hand, he found a locket that Jonas wanted him to give to his wife. McFadden then wrote a letter back to Clapton Orient to tell them of their loss. By the time that letter was received, McFadden had joined Jonas. However, McFadden died in a field hospital and has a grave. That is why it is so vital that we uphold these graves. So many people who went to world war one are lying on those battlefields—nameless, no one knowing where they are—but they are commemorated by their families.
We are now reaching the very end of that world war two generation; someone who was 21 in 1945 would now be 98. Those of us who go to the remembrance services watch as they get older, with their walking sticks, their crutches and their wheelchairs, and see their dwindling numbers, but still they come. They come to honour their friends and comrades. Still they walk—but one day they will not be there. I hope that, just as we honoured Harry Patch when he passed away, the last fighting Tommy of this country, with 1,000 people coming to his funeral and the then Duchess of Cornwall attending, we will afford the same honours to whoever that last veteran of world war two is.
As we saw with the passing of the Queen in September 2022, there are very few of that generation left. We owe them a debt of honour, for we would not be standing in this seat of democracy if they had not gone out to fight, though it was not just what they did in world war two but what they did afterwards. Without complaint, they rolled up their sleeves and rebuilt this bomb-damaged country so that future generations could enjoy the freedoms they fought for. That is why it is vital that we have a commitment from the Government that we will remember them properly, and we will mark their passing in a way that is appropriate.
The other thing the Commonwealth War Graves Commission does, its most important work, is to fight against the very real threat of fake news and the challenging of archives and documents. Those who deny things that were supposed to have happened in the past will challenge documents, but when they are faced with memorials, when they have to stand at those graves, they cannot deny that those things happened. They cannot deny world war one, or world war two, or all the other disputes we were involved with. That is why the CWGC is vital.
As other hon. Members have said, our armed forces footprint is declining year by year. Young people do not have any connection any more with the armed forces. For example, as I have said, my grandfather was the last military man to serve in our family, and he would be over 100 now. It is vital that we ensure that schools and community groups are made aware of that sacrifice.
This has been an emotional debate, but also the House at its very best—we often say that, and we often overuse the words “courage” and “heroism” as though they are just words we plucked from the air. But as Harry Kane, the England captain, who does vital work as an ambassador for the Royal British Legion, said when talking about the football battalion, “One day  you are just playing football and the next you are risking your life.” That brings home what those people went through.
I want to end with Harry Patch, who I find an inspiration. He said he was guided by the simple words of Moses, “Thou shalt not kill.” When he was faced with a German, he could not bring himself to kill that person, so he shot him in the shoulder. It is vital that we remember the horrors of war, that we pay tribute to those who went and fought for our armed services, and finally that we as a Government do something to honour them, so that we can all join together in an act of remembrance.

Nigel Evans: I have to say, in my 32 years of history in this Parliament, I am hearing some of the finest speeches I have ever heard. Absolutely superb.

James Gray: Until now, Mr Deputy Speaker! However, I wholly agree with you: we have had an afternoon of most magnificent speeches. One of the most notable features of them all is that they have brought to life the whole act of remembrance, not by grand gestures or huge strategic considerations, but by reference to very particular details: family members, local people, constituency events and stories from the days of our great wars. The hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart)—who are, symbolically, now sat together—both gave the most magnificent speeches. They were able to do so because they know those facts thanks to the huge work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission.
Rather than trying to emulate the wonderfully moving speeches that we have heard, I want to contemplate for a moment what we are trying to do in this work, through the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and the Royal British Legion, and in our constituencies on Remembrance Sunday. It is absolutely right and proper that we pay due respect and honour to those who have given their lives for King and country. I attended nearly all of the 347 repatriations through Wootton Bassett. The people of the town stopped on 134 occasions to pay their respects to those dead bodies as they came down the high street, and I am glad that the name of the town was changed to Royal Wootton Bassett as a result. However, the people of the town were not making any kind of political comment in doing so. They were not saying that they supported the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that we were going through at the time; they were not saying that they believed the Government or the Army were doing a good job. They were paying their respects to individuals who had given their lives under order.
It seems to me, then, that when we look at the wonders of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission cemeteries across France and elsewhere around the world, and indeed here in the UK, it is not about the people who have tragically died, who will not benefit from the magnificence of the cemeteries. There are three reasons the cemeteries are so superb. One is to remind us—we who are left—of the awfulness of war. We need to realise, as we see the tens of thousands of bodies laid out in front of us, that that is the meaning of  warfare, and that we must do all we can to stop and avoid it in future. It is a memorial to remind us all that warfare is a terrible thing.
Secondly, it is terribly important that we say to our serving soldiers, sailors and air people that if they pay the ultimate sacrifice and die in service, they will be properly remembered. For those who do what no normal citizen would be asked to do—closing with and seeking to kill the King’s enemy—it is important to know that if the worst happens, they will be properly commemorated and their family and friends will be able to visit their grave and know what they did. That is a second good reason why the CWGC work is so very important.
The third reason, which was mentioned a moment ago, is that families otherwise have nothing to latch on to. I saw many of them in Royal Wootton Basset. The families have nothing left. Very often, as in the first and second world wars, they do not even have a body left. Having a beautiful stone, designed by Lutyens, Baker and others, laid out in a wonderful cemetery, with superb flowers—my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) made a good point about the flowers and plants that the CWGC specialises in—gives the family a focus. So many families in this country spend time going out to where their loved ones fell. It gives them a focus for their grief and to remember their fallen relations and friends. For those three reasons, the cemeteries are very important.
It is not just about the work of the CWGC, as I will touch on briefly. I am very proud of the fact that we have welcomed to the House on a large number of occasions returning brigades from both Iraq and Afghanistan. It is important that we do that and pay tribute to those who give service to our armed services, but also that we remember those who have not come home with them. Some of the most poignant moments in those “welcome home” ceremonies over the years have been when the boys and girls in the parades remember those they have left behind. That is one of the most important things about those occasions. I am very glad that we are establishing a parliamentary remembrance stone at the National Arboretum—not far from your constituency, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is very important that we should do that, and I am glad that Mr Speaker’s initiative is now being taken forward and will shortly become a reality.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir Jeremy Quin) referred to the plaques around the wall in the Chamber. My own predecessor, Captain Cazalet, who was killed in 1942 in the Sikorski crash in Gibraltar, is commemorated above the door behind the Speaker’s Chair. It is terribly important that we have that commemoration, not necessarily for the people who are commemorated, but so those who are left know that the same thing would happen for us if we were in that position. These things are terribly important, and it is right that we commemorate people in that way. If we believe that it is our sacred duty to remember and pay tribute to those who have died, and to think about the sacrifice they made and the awfulness of war, the way we do that is through the wonderful work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission.
Many of the speakers this afternoon have spoken about the very large numbers of graves and graveyards around the world, including those in the United Kingdom. I will not repeat what those Members have said, but all my life—whether it be in Belgium, in the Falklands, or  elsewhere around the world—I have been deeply moved by seeing those graveyards. Every time I go into one, I can hardly contain myself; they are so magnificent. I absolutely adore the Commonwealth War Graves Commission’s cemeteries. It is terribly important that we honour our war dead so well—I fear that other nations do not do so in the same way. I am sometimes particularly disappointed, for example, by the Argentinian graveyards in the Falklands, which could do with some more work. Ours are simply superb. They are just magnificent, and I am therefore very glad to have the opportunity this afternoon to salute the work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, which does a magnificent job in commemorating our war dead.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham is the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for battlefields and Commonwealth war graves. He does great work, and I commend him for the battlefield tours that he has led over the years. The most important moment of all those tours is when we visit the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, and I hope my right hon. Friend will carry on that work in future.
Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. I therefore salute the work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, which commemorates that fact.

Matthew Offord: As you have said, Mr Deputy Speaker, it is a great honour to speak in this afternoon’s debate, and we are certainly hearing some great contributions from Members. I am very proud to be able to take part in this debate. The work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission is very important to many people. It may not be an issue that constituents write to us about, but the value of the commission’s work—particularly to the ability of our constituents to visit war graves—is underestimated.
As has been said, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission is a global organisation that takes responsibility for the commemoration of more than 1.7 million casualties in over 23,000 locations in 153 different countries. In 2005, I travelled out of the Libyan desert, northwards along the coast road to Alexandria in Egypt, and myself and the only other Brit in our expedition insisted that we stop at El Alamein to visit the cemetery there. The others in our delegation could not understand why we insisted on doing so, and were amazed at our persistence in demanding that we did. There, 7,240 Commonwealth soldiers are interred at what is an incredible location: row upon row of stones alongside immaculate gardens, and a great credit to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission.
However, there are also Commonwealth War Graves Commission graves in this country. As a regular visitor to churchyards across the UK, it interests me to discover signs at the entrances that state that those churchyards contain grounds of Commonwealth war graves, and I always search out their locations. In the Hendon cemetery and crematorium, there are 69 Commonwealth burials from the first world war and 156 from the second world war. Those whose graves are not marked by headstones are named on two screen wall memorials close to the cross of sacrifice. There are an additional 14 casualties  from the second world war named on those screen walls who were cremated in the adjoining crematorium, and there are two non-Commonwealth service burials and one non-world war burial in the care of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission.
A significant reason why I support the Commonwealth War Graves Commission is that it provides a memorial not only to the dead, but for the living. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray). Losing any relative is difficult, but to do so in conflict, when it is sudden and usually violent, is particularly hard. My great-uncle was killed in the first world war in action at Upper Oosthoek farm near Ypres on 14 February 1915. His regiment, the 2nd Battalion East Surrey, was passing through the ruins of the farm buildings when heavy rifle and machine gun fire was directed at them and several men were hit.
Having recently returned from service in India, the replacement soldiers were ill equipped for the wind and rain that was falling. To compound their tragedy, the attack was at a significant disadvantage in that my great-uncle and his comrades were ordered to advance without firing, as the trenches on both flanks were held by British troops and, owing to a shortage of ammunition, there was no artillery support. However, the advance continued without hesitation, although several officers and men fell rapidly. The distance from the farm buildings to the objective trenches was about 500 yards. A hedgerow running north and south afforded some cover for the first 200 yards, but the last 300 yards lay over an open turnip field with deep clay soil. While struggling knee-deep in the mud across the field, A company was practically wiped out and C company, my great-uncle’s section, which was following in close support, fared little better. Of the whole attacking party, 35 were killed and 81 wounded, while five officers were killed and six wounded.
It is an honour today to be able to put on record the sacrifice that my great-uncle made because he has no known grave, and his relatives have never had an opportunity to commemorate him. However, he is included on the role of honour at Chertsey war memorial as Offord, JD—Joseph Dick—and on panel 34 at the Menin Gate in Belgium. He was just 23 years of age. I only know this information about my uncle and the attack from the work undertaken by my cousin Mark Offord in researching our shared genealogy, and I raise this as evidence of the importance of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission.
It is most appropriate for the Legacy of Liberation campaign to commemorate the 80th anniversaries of pivotal world war two events, with a special emphasis on D-day. This debate today is particularly poignant, as I watched the lighting of the torch at the Horse Guards Parade with Peter Kent, a veteran of D-day. I am also aware of the “Lighting Their Legacy” event on HMS Belfast earlier today, which was attended by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) and I presume by the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson). I conclude by thanking both of them for their work as commissioners of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. This is a role that Members undertake, and when people say that Members of Parliament are only in it for themselves, we should highlight that such work is conducted in a very quiet and dignified fashion, without fuss and fanfare. On behalf of my great-uncle Joseph Dick Offord and  everyone who paid the ultimate sacrifice, I say thank you to the commissioners and every single employee and volunteer at the Commonwealth War Graves Commission.

Will Quince: It is an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord), who made a very powerful speech. There have been so many powerful and emotive speeches, and so many Members have eloquently and articulately set out why the work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission is so important. As other right hon. and hon. Members have said, it is a great honour to speak in this debate. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a reservist.
I am very proud to represent Colchester, which is the home of 16 Air Assault Brigade. It was a long-time garrison town, and now a garrison city. I think the first garrison in Colchester was formed shortly after the Roman invasion in AD 43 and it has been a garrison ever since, but it has been a very important garrison since the Napoleonic wars. As an important garrison town, we have a large military cemetery in Colchester. It contains 114 Commonwealth war graves from the second world war and 266 war graves from the first world war. On Remembrance Sunday, we have a very well attended service at the war memorial, which thousands of Colcestrians attend. In fact, every year the crowd gets larger, but few are aware of the two services held beforehand at both the first world war and second world war memorials in Colchester cemetery, very close to the military cemetery. It is Colchester cemetery that I will speak about this afternoon in this War Graves Week debate.
Those of us on the glide path out of politics tend to look back at our time in this place as a parliamentarian and the changes and the difference we have tried to make. With that in mind I would like to pay tribute to a constituent of mine who I have been honoured to support. On my election to this House in 2015 I was approached by Mike Jackson specifically about Colchester cemetery. Mike and Sue Jackson are two of the most inspirational people I have ever met. They have raised over £275,000 for Help for Heroes in memory of their late son-in-law Kevin, or Kev, Fortuna. They initially set out to raise £10,000 and they just did not stop.
Colour Serjeant Kev Fortuna of A Company, 1st Battalion the Rifles was tragically killed in May 2011 on active duty in Afghanistan. Mike had been raising the issue of war graves with my predecessor, Sir Bob Russell, and on my election Mike asked me to come with him to visit Colchester cemetery and of course I accepted. He showed me the part of the cemetery with the first and second world war graves, which were beautifully maintained by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. He then showed me the war graves of those who had tragically lost their lives after the end of the second world war, which of course included the grave of Colour Serjeant Fortuna. Shamefully, despite the best efforts of several family members who live locally, the war graves were not maintained to anywhere near the standard of those of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission.
After research Mike and I identified this was not a Colchester-unique issue; it was a national issue. Mike and I agreed to work together to address this and campaign for change. I wrote to, and secured a meeting  with, Earl Howe of the other place, then a Defence Minister. He explained that the remit of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission was the first and second world war graves and any war grave thereafter was maintained by the Ministry of Defence. He explained that the MOD budget for war grave maintenance was around a third of that of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and, as sympathetic as he was, he suggested I speak with the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
So we secured a meeting with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was George Osborne at the time, and I recall it vividly. Any parliamentary colleague who has ever gone to ask the Chancellor, or any Treasury Minister, for money knows that is no easy task; especially for an MP in their first year, the default response is usually “No”—or at least it starts with “No”.
However, to his great credit, this meeting with George Osborne was very different. We set out the facts, we explained the background, we spoke about Mike Jackson’s campaign and how wrong it was that Kev Fortuna’s family were maintaining his grave, not to mention the graves of those who had fallen without loved ones nearby to tend to their graves. To George Osborne’s credit, he put out his hand to stop me mid-sentence and said. “That isn’t right. Leave it with me, but I assure you I’m going to fix it.” And just a handful of weeks later at the spending review and autumn statement, George Osborne announced the Government would fund the brilliant Commonwealth War Graves Commission so it could tend over 6,000 graves of those who have died fighting for our country since the second world war. That in effect meant £2 million as an initial up-front sum and then funding as a commitment in perpetuity for all war graves to be maintained by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission.
I pay tribute to George Osborne for seeing this injustice and putting it right, and I want to thank and pay tribute to Mike Jackson for his determination to right this injustice. His campaign has benefited not just Colchester but more than 1,200 locations where there are war graves. Finally, but by no means least, I want to pay tribute to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission for the incredible work it does locally, nationally and internationally. Of course I welcome the uplift in funding announced by the Secretary of State. Commemoration matters; recognising sacrifice matters. We must and we will remember them.

Jonathan Lord: Mr Deputy Speaker, I completely agree with your words earlier that this has been an astonishingly eloquent debate, not least the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince), who has just contributed. It is therefore a privilege and an honour to participate in it.
I am very proud to have Brookwood military cemetery in my constituency of Woking. It is owned by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and it is the largest Commonwealth war cemetery in the United Kingdom, covering approximately 37 acres.
In 1917, an area of land in Brookwood cemetery—or the London Necropolis, as it was known then—was set aside for the burial of men and women of the forces of the Commonwealth and Americans who had died, many from battle wounds, in the London district. This site  was further extended to accommodate the Commonwealth casualties of the second world war. There is a large Royal Air Force section in the south-east corner of the cemetery, which also contains the graves of Czechoslovakian and American airmen who served with the Royal Air Force. The Air Force shelter nearby houses the register of those buried in the section. A plot in the west corner of the cemetery contains approximately 2,400 Canadian graves of the second world war, including those of 43 men who died of wounds following the Dieppe raid in August 1942. The Canadian records building, which was a gift of the Canadian Government in 1946, houses a reception room for visitors.
In addition to the Commonwealth plots, the cemetery also contains French, Polish, Czechoslovakian, Belgian and Italian sections, and a number of war graves of other nationalities, all cared for by the commission. The elegant and imposing American military cemetery is the responsibility of the American Battle Monuments Commission. It is maintained every bit as carefully and meticulously as the rest of Brookwood military cemetery.
The cemetery now contains 1,601 Commonwealth burials of the first world war and 3,476 of the second world war. Of the second world war burials, five are unidentified, three being members of the RAF and two being members of the Royal Canadian Air Force. The war graves of other nationalities in the commission’s care number 786, including 28 unidentified French.
As an agency service on behalf of the Royal Hospital Chelsea, the commission also maintains a plot for the graves of the Chelsea pensioners, situated adjacent to the military cemetery. It also maintains a small plot containing the graves of 12 members of the nursing services in the adjoining Brookwood cemetery, which is also in the commission’s care.
The Brookwood 1939 to 1945 memorial stands at the southern end of the Canadian section of the cemetery. It commemorates 3,500 men and women of the land forces of the Commonwealth who died during the second world war and have no known grave, the circumstances of their death being such that they could not appropriately be commemorated in any of the campaign memorials in the various theatres of war. They died in the campaign in Norway in 1940 or in the various raids on enemy occupied territory in Europe, such as Dieppe and Saint-Nazaire. Others were special agents who died as prisoners or while working with allied underground movements. Some died at sea, in hospital ships and troop transports, in waters not associated with the major campaigns. A few were killed in flying accidents or in aerial combat.
Some of the stories about the lives, service and deaths of these men and women, particularly those of the special agents, are truly remarkable, fascinating and incredibly moving. A fine new Brookwood 1914 to 1918 memorial was built during my time as Woking’s MP in 2015. It commemorates casualties who died in the United Kingdom during the first world war, but for whom no graves could be found.
Most of the historical information that I have shared with the House comes directly from the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, which does an amazing job. What that cannot convey is the beauty—the terrible beauty, almost—of Brookwood military cemetery. Whether it is in the snow in wintertime, or rain, or the glorious  sunshine that has come out for many of the events that take place during the summer months, it is an incredibly beautiful and moving place. Of all the events, services, commemorations and concerts that I attend, I enjoy most of all the open days where the commission invites the public to come and see the cemetery, the commitment and professionalism of the stone masons and gardeners, and explain the work that it does.
The right hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) and others mentioned how the commission helps to track down military graves outside our major cemeteries. If it cannot look after those graves, volunteers come forward. I pay tribute to all 2,000 of those volunteers who help out in the UK maintaining graves and telling the commission when a grave is not being kept properly or the stone has broken.
It is moving for me to have Brookwood military cemetery in my constituency. We can look at those graves, which are mainly of young men and women. I studied the first world war, and for many people in our country, that war—those four years of terrible slaughter—came out of the clear blue sky. For the second world war, the dark clouds were more obvious and lasted longer. Men and women of our country and allied nations around the world came forward in that hour of need, and we have been paying tribute to their ultimate sacrifice.
I have enjoyed attending many of the events of my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray), who has chaired the all-party parliamentary group for the armed forces for so many years. It is interesting to hear the stories of our top armed forces generals, admirals, chiefs and so forth from the inside. They are in no doubt that, if the call came, not just our generation—by and large, those of us in the House are too old to serve—but the current generations would step up in that hour of need.
We have dark clouds overhead in the world. The Prime Minister spoke eloquently about that in his major speech the other day. I, together with most colleagues in the House—certainly those on the Government Benches—welcome his commitment to that 2.5% target for our armed forces going forward. I know that we have patriotic parties across the House, but we need to be ready. The old axiom that to preserve the peace, we need to prepare for the eventuality of war is the message that is coming to us from our military cemeteries. I know that this generation would make that sacrifice, but the Government and the House need to be on their mettle to meet the threats of the world today.

Kevan Jones: I begin by declaring an interest as a former commissioner of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and a current trustee of the Commonwealth War Graves Foundation. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr Lord) just described what we all see when we visit Commonwealth war grave cemeteries, with the beauty and the neatness of their lines. I always find it moving to read the inscriptions and see the young ages of some of the individuals who took huge responsibilities to protect the freedoms that we take for granted today. It does an extraordinary job of maintaining those graves, not just in this country but around the world. I pay tribute to all the staff, including the current director general Claire Horton.
I also pay tribute to His Royal Highness the Duke of Kent, who has been the president of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission since 1970. When I was a commissioner he took a very active interest. Commissioners today will know his interest, and he still attends ceremonies on behalf of the commission, even at his advanced years. I had the honour in 2010of being appointed by the Queen as one of the two parliamentary commissioners for the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, along with my great friend Keith Simpson, who is no longer in the House. Like the commissioners today, we both took the role very seriously. It was one of the highlights of my parliamentary career, and a privilege to serve in that organisation.
I also had the honour of being a Minister in the Ministry of Defence, responsible for the new war graves cemetery created at Fromelles in 2010. That shows that we are still finding casualties throughout the world, who are still given the respectful burial that each deserves. I pay tribute to the staff who do the research, and for all their care and dedication. Fromelles was on a different scale—more than 400 bodies were uncovered in a piece of detective work by an Australian individual. It was a great honour to attend the interment of the first casualty there, along with my Australian counterpart.
It has been said that we think the Commonwealth War Graves Commission is a great British institution, but like a lot of things in the UK, it came into being by accident. The tenacity of Fabian Ware’s great registration scheme in the first world war led to the formation of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. Was it universally popular at the time? No, it was not. I suggest that anyone with an interest in how it came to be reads the debate of 4 May 1920, when the money was being apportioned to set it up following the great war. Was it a foregone conclusion? No, it was not. People argued against it, such as the Member for Holborn, Sir James Remnant, who argued that the dead were not the property of the state. It was quite a new thing then for the state to take the decision, because in other campaigns, bodies were repatriated if people could afford it. One individual in that debate opposed what he called the nationalisation of death.
The commission was set up uniquely by dedicated individuals. At an Italian war cemetery, the generals’ graves are huge mausoleums, and the privates are stuck behind. The Commonwealth War Graves Commission was clear that in death, everyone is equal. That was an important message and is why the standard commemoration was put in place. No exceptions were made. One of the most poignant things for me is not the graves themselves but the names of individuals—generals can be next to privates. There is no rank in death. An example that sums that up well is down at the Hollybrook memorial in Southampton, which commemorates those lost at sea. There is Lord Kitchener, and then a long list of names of those from the South African labour corps who were lost in an accident off the Isle of Wight. That shows what the commission did and continues to do to ensure that individuals are remembered, regardless of their status.
When I was a commissioner, I had the great honour of visiting the commission’s staff around the world, including, as I think the Secretary of State mentioned, in Gaza. It is not the easiest part of the world, but the dedication of the staff is just the same. I will certainly be thinking of them today, and the job that they do.  The cemeteries are beautiful. The most poignant one that I visited is in Papua New Guinea. It is in the middle of a jungle, but is beautifully maintained by the staff. As the right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) said, the staff look after not just the memorials and the gravestones, but the horticulture. I am a bit of an anorak on the subject, but if anyone wants to look at the horticulture of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, its history is absolutely fascinating. The work of Gertrude Jekyll and others set the standards that are maintained today. As the right hon. Gentleman said, with climate change, adaptations need to be made, and the commission is at the forefront of that work.
I have the honour of being a trustee of the Commonwealth War Graves Foundation. The problem with the commission, if there is one, is that its remit is very tightly controlled by its royal charter. When I was on the commission, one of the issues was whether, technically, we were able to do education. It did not fall within the remit, so we came up with the idea of the foundation. I encourage everyone to look at the foundation’s website, and ask those who are not already members of the foundation to join, so as to support its educational work. It is great at taking the work of remembrance, and of the commission, to schools and so on. That work is not just about remembering the commission’s iconic sites in France, but about getting people to recognise what they have on their doorstep. That formed the subject of a project that I worked on when I was a commissioner. There are war graves in our local cemeteries. In my constituency, there are a number of single graves, but also 24 in Stanley cemetery and 12 in Sacriston cemetery. The Commonwealth War Graves Foundation is trying to ensure that people are aware of their local history, because the people in those cemetaries are mainly local people.
When we look into the stories, which some great local groups are doing, we find that the reason why graves are in a particular place can be very interesting. In County Durham, there are the graves of an Australian bomber crew who were killed returning from a training mission. I think someone referred to this site earlier when discussing the commission’s work with its international partners, but in Cannock Chase there are some 400 casualties from Australia and New Zealand, alongside nearly 2,000 German casualties—zeppelin crews and so on—who died mainly during the first world war. That shows that the commission works internationally. Why are there 400 Australian and New Zealand casualties in Cannock Chase, of all places? Well, it is a very sad story. It was a casualty clearing station, and the casualties went there after the first world war, having survived the horrors of the western front, only to die, in most cases, of Spanish flu. Casualties turn up in different places for interesting reasons.
We in the Commonwealth War Graves Foundation are keen to work with local groups. We have volunteers who not only maintain graves but work on history projects. It is important to get schools involved. We also have a lecture programme; people can ask for a lecture from a volunteer, and I am one. I am qualified to give the Commonwealth War Graves Foundation lecture to local groups. I encourage everyone to look at our website and try to get their community involved. They will be amazed to see what is on their doorstep. That is an important way of bringing not just the work of the commission but local history to life.

Jamie Stone: I have sat here quietly so far, and I almost hesitate to intervene because this is a very dignified debate, but the right hon. Member is making an extremely important point. In my home town of Tain, way up in the highlands, we have 30 war graves, and many are the graves of Czech airmen, which reflects exactly the point that the right hon. Member makes. For 35 years, two people, Billy and Mary Grant, have looked after those graves out of the goodness of their hearts. I have mentioned them deliberately; I want them to have their names in Hansard because of all the good that they have done. The right hon. Member’s point is excellently made, and I support it to the hilt.

Kevan Jones: I thank those volunteers, but the hon. Gentleman has raised another interesting point. These are not just British casualties; throughout the United Kingdom, there are casualties from all nations that contributed to our efforts in both world wars.
As I have said, I am passionate about this subject. I think the two commissioners in the House will confirm that once you have been a commissioner, you have it in your blood. I know I am a pain when I go to a funeral or a wedding, because I always go around the cemetery to see whether there are any Commonwealth War Graves Commission sites. The commission has taken a great step forward in digitising information and giving visibility to the casualties who are buried not in large cemeteries, but on our doorstep.
Let me end by paying tribute not only to the commission’s current staff members, but to those who have gone before. They are loyal, dedicated individuals. Is this about glorifying war? No, it is not; it is about recognising the sacrifice that people made, and let us hope that we can continue to do that. It is poignant, especially given the war that is taking place in Europe, to recognise the sacrifice that was made on our behalf in the past so that we can enjoy our freedoms today.

Eleanor Laing: I call the shadow Minister.

Steve McCabe: This has been an excellent debate. The House is at its best when people come together to share knowledge, and details that shed light on a subject and add to the richness of our understanding, without recourse to the tribalism that occasionally mars our proceedings.
Let me begin by acknowledging the view, expressed by many today, that it is our duty to remember those who have served and the sacrifices that they made. We have an obligation to look after their legacy, which cannot and should not lessen with the passage of time. The contributions to today’s debate have all been thoughtful, informative and moving. I doubt that I can do justice to them all, but I want to acknowledge the intervention by the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), and I thank her for reminding us of the difficult places and situations in which the commission operates. I also thank the Secretary of State for a very thoughtful speech, and for his positive update on the commission’s staff who have been in Gaza, and their families.
The right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) described a family connection with the Salerno invasion, but he also told us about the important role of the  commission in horticulture, record keeping, forensic examination and the respectful reinternment of remains. That added to our stock of knowledge. The hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Allan Dorans) spoke of a family connection, too. He gave a very good account of the community involvement that can be generated, which can make a real difference. The Chair of the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for Horsham (Sir Jeremy Quin), reminded us of the scale of losses during the first world war, and of the age of so many who died. Often they were not much older than the schoolchildren who visit the sites today.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) reminded us of the role of her mother and mother-in-law, and of the role of women in both munitions and the Women’s Auxiliary Air Force. My mother and aunt played similar roles. My right hon. Friend also reminded us of the Kranji war memorial in Singapore, and of the prisoners of war who lost their life during the building of the death railway.
I have great affection for the right hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), and I have heard many of his moving accounts of the horrors of war in this place. Today, he gave a typically thoughtful and moving account of the personal situations in which people sometimes find themselves. My hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) reminded us of the nature of the personal stories behind the names and inscriptions we read. He also pointed out that we owe a special debt of honour to what I might call the world war two generation.
The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray) already does so much in this field, and he reminded us of something that is easy to overlook: the awfulness of war, and the role of memorials in both remembering those lost and offering some comfort and respect to the families who remain behind. The hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) gave a family account of the role of his great-uncle, who was clearly engaged in an act of considerable heroism. The hon. Member for Colchester (Will Quince) reminded us of his personal achievement—it was no mean feat—in persuading the former Chancellor George Osborne to expand the funding remit of the commission, so that it covered those who had been killed in conflicts after world war two. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr Lord) gave a very evocative account of Brookwood cemetery, and I could visualise the layout as he described it. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) reminded me of just how long he has been in this place, and of just how much he has done. I also acknowledge the stress that he put on the role of education. As well as describing some of the things he did during his time as a commissioner, he also made the good point that there is no rank in death.
I pay tribute to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission for all the work it does to keep alive the memory of the fallen and to provide each new generation with the tools and information they need to understand their history and the sacrifice of so many. That is something that has informed my efforts over 18 years of bringing generations together, especially school pupils and veterans, to understand and celebrate veteran events and Armed Forces Days in my constituency. This is a subject that invites agreement. I acknowledge the dedicated work of all members of the commission. I also acknowledge the sterling work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), which has already been  raised today, to ensure that the contributions of thousands of individuals from across Africa, India, the middle east and elsewhere are not overlooked and that their rightful place in history is recognised.
The commission’s work, supported by its wonderful volunteers, helps to maintain about 23,000 memorial sites across the world, to keep records, to create spaces to remember the fallen and to provide a final resting place for those who have died, sometimes many miles from home. I also commend the work of the commission on developing new tools to help the rest of us to make sense of what is happening. Before I came into the Chamber today, I used that wonderful tool that allows us to find out details from our area by punching in a postcode. I discovered that where I live today is very close to the house that was the home of Private Edward Harry Bate Crofts of the Royal Warwickshire Regiment, who died on 17 April 1915 aged 22 and is remembered at the Ploegsteert Memorial in Belgium. He was the only son of Edward and Clara Crofts of 59 Franklin Road, Bournville, Birmingham.
We have learned today that there are things in this House that can bring us all together, that enable us to put aside our differences and help others to understand what sacrifice has meant in the past, and how important it is to the world that we now face in the future. I commend everyone who took part in this debate, and I thank the Commonwealth War Graves Commission for its outstanding work. I hope that we will be here to celebrate its efforts for many years to come.

Leo Docherty: This has been a powerful and measured debate, and I am grateful to the Opposition Front Benchers and all hon. and right hon. and gallant Members for the sincerity and power with which they have expressed themselves this afternoon.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) reflected on his important work as a commissioner and the importance of the parliamentary connection with the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. I was very interested to hear him refer to the action at Salerno, in which his grandfather won the Military Cross. He spoke about the global scale of the commission’s challenge in maintaining graves in some of the most difficult circumstances, and in the continued recovery of the fallen, which sets the context nicely for the commemoration that will take place in Normandy for D-day 80. I was glad that he referred to the outreach in schools, which will be an important component of that hugely important commemorative event.
The hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Allan Dorans) recalled the service of his family members and the important steps taken by the local community in creating initiatives for remembrance. He also spoke about the important role played by merchant seamen, who are sometimes overlooked, and the commemoration thereof.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir Jeremy Quin), the Chair of the Defence Committee, made a very moving speech about the scale of the impact, reflected by the fact that both the Prime Minister and the leader of the Labour party lost sons at Loos in 1915. He also spoke about the scale of sacrifice by the  Commonwealth contingent and the scale of effort in commemorating 1.7 million fallen across 23,000 locations in 153 countries.
My right hon. Friend also spoke movingly about a 99-year-old Normandy veteran in his constituency who asked, “Why them and not us?” That perennial question, which haunts all those involved in any form of operational soldiering, is at the heart of remembrance and everything we do therein. It is at the heart of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission’s work.
The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) is also a commissioner whose work we hugely appreciate. She spoke appropriately about the very important role of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission’s staff and leadership. We are grateful to her for putting that on the record, and I second her sentiment in appreciating the tremendous role they play.
The right hon. Lady spoke very interestingly about her father’s role in the senior service and her mother’s role in a munitions factory, which will reflect the family experience of many right hon. and hon. Members and many constituents. She also mentioned the huge scale of service from the Yorkshire regiments and the Singapore memorials at Kranji. I am grateful that she concluded by saying that the “Torch of Liberation” was passed this morning—my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary was there—and that it will now make its way to Normandy next month. That will be an important and very moving act of remembrance.

Bill Cash: I note the welcome presence of the Secretary of State at such a debate.
As the only MP whose father was killed in the war, I owe great thanks to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and its volunteers for all the work they do in looking after my father’s grave at St Manvieu in Normandy, where he was killed in action against a Panzer division on 13 July 1944 and won the Military Cross.
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for all the work he is doing in this respect.

Leo Docherty: It is my great honour to acknowledge my hon. Friend’s intervention and to put on record our gratitude for his father’s heroism in action, for which he was posthumously awarded the Military Cross. The Secretary of State informs me that arrangements have been made so that my hon. Friend will be able to attend the commemoration event in Normandy next month, which will be a very fitting tribute to the memory of his late, gallant father.
My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) told a very moving story of sacrifice involving the 2nd Cheshire Regiment’s role in the invasion of Sicily, involving young officers Cox and Martin. He referred very poetically to “many kinds of sorrow” but, of course, none is so keen as a soldier’s for his mate. The House receives his remarks in the context of his own distinguished and gallant record. We are proud to have heard his reflections today. He spoke about the 2,135 Commonwealth war graves in the Catania cemetery, which indicates the sheer scale of loss and sacrifice.
That sentiment was reflected in the welcome remarks from the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans), who spoke movingly about his grandfather’s service in, somewhat  unexpectedly, but no less honourably, the Highlanders. The hon. Gentleman also spoke movingly about the reflections of Harry Patch, the last fighting Tommy, in explaining the human toll and the remarkable human stories behind all the statistics therein. He spoke movingly about the experiences of the football regiment and the story of McFadden and Jonas. He also talked about how we have a dwindling number of world war two veterans and of the world war two generation, and so the challenge remains for us to make commemoration relevant and urgent. Clearly, the outcome of the work of the CWGC does exactly that. The commemorations next month at Normandy will be a welcome focus, and I was grateful for his remarks.
Characteristically, my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray) made some cogent remarks. We pay tribute to his continued work to support veterans and the act of remembrance. He spoke about the important role of Royal Wootton Bassett, what a physical commemoration means to families of the fallen and the sheer moving experience of visiting CWGC cemeteries.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) spoke interestingly and movingly about a visit he made in 2005 to the El Alamein cemetery. I join him in that sentiment, as I have been there; the 7,240 graves are a remarkable sight against the backdrop of the north African desert. He made the good point that these places are important for not just the dead, but the living; the families and the survivors need the physical aspect of commemoration to help them deal with the grief. He gave us a moving story about what happened in the first world war to his great-uncle. He was commemorated on the Menin Gate and that was most welcome. I join my hon. Friend in sincerely thanking the commissioners and the staff of the CWGC for their work.
My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince) gave an interesting insight into the effective campaign of General Jackson and others to ensure that the 6,000 graves of those fallen after 1945 are appropriately supported and maintained. My hon. Friend made a reference to the fact that he is on his way out of politics, which might give him an opportunity to expand and deepen his fledgling military career. His remarks today were very cogent and we are grateful for them, because Colchester has a very important place in our national defence.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Lord) described the amazing scale of Brookwood, a place I know well because it is near my constituency, and the sum of the 5,627 graves there. I am grateful to him for highlighting the importance of that historic location. The right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) referred to his time as a commissioner, for which we are most grateful. I was very pleased that he put on record the gratitude of this House for the amazing work over many, many years of His Royal Highness the Duke of Kent. The right hon. Gentleman made the good point that casualties are still being recovered to this day and that that presents a considerable challenge. He also made the moving point that the principle of equality in death is very important to the commission—it is one we all support. Whether or not he has a wedding to attend near Aldershot, he is very welcome to come to explore the nearly 1,000 war graves we have in Aldershot one weekend. They are maintained to a very high standard.
We have indeed seen the House at its best today, united, respectful and sincerely grateful to the CWGC and to the millions of our forebears who served and sacrificed in the 20th century so that we could be free in the 21st. The sheer scale of the commission’s undertaking to maintain and restore monuments and memories is immense, and its impact on every generation, including future generations to come, is of course priceless. It provides an appreciation of our history; a deep appreciation of our freedom and our democracy; and an appreciation of service and of all those who gave their lives, and all those who were prepared to do that, so that we, in this Chamber, could be free today. On behalf of the whole House, I am very grateful. We say thank you to all those involved for the work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and thank you to all those whom they help us to commemorate.

Eleanor Laing: This has been an excellent debate. It is sad and unfortunate that those who comment upon what goes on in this Chamber and the work that Members of Parliament do are, quite frankly, too lazy to report a debate like this, when the House is working together, across parties, in a very good cause. I suppose I am laying down a challenge to those who report the proceedings of this Chamber, to report this debate and give it the attention that it deserves, particularly in comparison to other times when the House is fuller but far less productive.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered War Graves Week.

Business without Debate

Committees

Eleanor Laing: With the leave of the House, I propose to take motions 6 to 11 together.
Ordered,

European Scrutiny

That Dame Andrea Jenkyns be discharged from the European Scrutiny Committee and Brendan Clarke-Smith be added.

Home Affairs

That Lee Anderson be discharged from the Home Affairs Committee and Brendan Clarke-Smith be added.

Justice

That Paul Maynard be discharged from the Justice Committee and Andy Carter and Dehenna Davison be added.

Levelling Up, Housing and Communities

That Mrs Natalie Elphicke be discharged from the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee and Steve Tuckwell be added.

Northern Ireland Affairs

That Damian Collins be added to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.

Petitions

That Matt Vickers and Tom Hunt be discharged from the Petitions Committee and Tracey Crouch and Peter Gibson be added.—(Sir Bill Wiggin, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

Petition - RBS Bank Closure in Linlithgow and East Falkirk

Martyn Day: I rise to present a petition relating to the Royal Bank of Scotland closure in Linlithgow and East Falkirk.
My constituency boasts the largest electorate in Scotland, but following the announcement that the Bathgate branch of RBS will close, we will have no remaining RBS branches in the constituency. Banking has changed considerably in the past 25 years, since I worked in the sector. The pace of change has increased since covid, with many people finding online and digital banking more convenient. However, there remains a significant proportion of our community who, for one reason or another, do not do digital banking, and they will be at a serious disadvantage as a result of the closure. They require face to face contact and good, ready access to cash.
The petitioners request
“that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage the partially publicly-owned NatWest to keep open their last remaining RBS branch in Linlithgow and East Falkirk to ensure residents have access to in-person banking provisions.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Linlithgow and East Falkirk,
Declares that the announcement that the Royal Bank of Scotland, owned by NatWest, plans to close its Bathgate branch will have a detrimental impact on the local community; further that this means that RBS will have closed all of its branches in the constituency; further recognises that the removal of high street branches will have a significant impact on those in the community who do not use digital banking; notes that this decision will leave residents in the town with access to just one full time bank branch; further notes that constituents will have to travel to Livingston to visit their nearest RBS branch.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage the partially publicly-owned NatWest to keep open their last remaining RBS branch in Linlithgow and East Falkirk to ensure residents have access to in-person banking provisions.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002978]

Petition - Recommendations of the Infected Blood Inquiry

Jessica Morden: I rise to present a petition on behalf of Colin and Janet Smith and Lin Ashcroft from Newport East, who have spent many years fighting for their loved ones, who were victims of the contaminated blood scandal.
Colin and Janet’s son, Colin, died aged just seven, having received blood products contaminated with HIV and hepatitis C at just 10 months old. Just a few months before Colin’s death, Lin lost her husband, Bill, who also contracted HIV through contaminated blood products. For years both families, like so many others impacted by this disaster, faced discrimination. On Friday, Colin told me that 30 years ago they would have been more likely to get a brick through the window instead of signatures of support, which makes the stack of paper I have here today even more important. Almost 1,000 signatures from people across Newport East have been collected by Laura Smith, the Smiths’ daughter-in-law, who deserves much thanks. They were collected with much love for Colin.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Newport East,
Declares that people who received infected blood and who have suffered as a consequence have, along with their families, waited for too long for redress.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to implement the recommendations in the Second Interim Report of the Infected Blood Inquiry without delay.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002980]

Kevin Brennan: I rise to present a petition in the same terms as that so eloquently presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) just a few moments ago. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), who has led the fight for justice for victims of the infected blood scandal in this House. My constituent Sue Sparkes lost her husband, Les, owing to infected blood in 1990, leaving their two sons without a father. She has been tirelessly fighting for justice ever since.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Cardiff West,
Declares that people who received infected blood and who have suffered as a consequence have, along with their families, waited for too long for redress.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to implement the recommendations in the Second Interim Report of the Infected Blood Inquiry without delay.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002984]

Sarah Jones: I rise to present a petition on behalf of my constituents in Croydon Central and of all those affected by the contaminated blood scandal, and on the same topic as those presented by my hon. Friends the Members for Newport East (Jessica Morden) and for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan). I add my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) for her tireless work in pursuing justice.
I am presenting this petition with one constituent in mind who has suffered for many years with undiagnosed hepatitis C as a result of having a transfusion of infected blood. She came to see me recently to help me understand the scale of the scandal and its human impact. Her stories and those of many more have been bypassed and overlooked for far too long. The petitioners
“request that the House of Commons urges the Government to implement the recommendations in the Second Interim Report of the Infected Blood Inquiry without delay.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Croydon Central,
Declares that people who received infected blood and who have suffered as a consequence have, along with their families, waited for too long for redress.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to implement the recommendations in the Second Interim Report of the Infected Blood Inquiry without delay.
And the petitioners remain, etc].
[P002981]

Crime: Birmingham, Edgbaston

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Aaron Bell.)

Preet Kaur Gill: It is a pleasure to speak on behalf of my constituents in this debate on crime in Birmingham, Edgbaston. I am pleased that I have been able to secure it, as it comes on the back of a spate of issues that constituents have raised with me in the past number of years, which appear to be getting worse.
In the west midlands, neighbourhood crime has been steadily rising since 2020. Although the title of this debate covers Birmingham, Edgbaston, I know that the experiences and challenges that we face in my constituency are felt across Birmingham and the whole of England. My constituency covers the wards of Edgbaston, North Edgbaston, Harborne, Quinton and Bartley Green.
Let me start by focusing on an issue that has been an absolute stain on the lives of so many of my constituents in recent years: the rise in car-related crime. As the Minister will no doubt be aware, this is one of the many areas of crime where outcomes have steadily worsened over the past 14 years.
By 2010-11, when Labour last left office, vehicle thefts in England and Wales had dropped to a third of what they were 10 years previously. In the years since, numbers have risen again by a third, to over 130,000. But while thefts have risen, the number of cases solved has not. Home Office data for the outcomes of reported crimes show that only 2% of car thefts recorded led to a suspect being charged or summoned. In total, this figure amounted to 3,378. A total of 76% of car thefts were not solved last year.
However, what I really want to talk about today is not the headline statistics, as bleak as they are, but some of the real stories behind the statistics, because debates about crime are not abstract. The experience of my constituents cannot be described by lines on a chart. The result of crime is often a life shattered, confidence shaken and a trail of devastation in its wake, with the victim forced to pick up the pieces.
A recurrent issue that is causing misery for many residents is car stripping. In 2022 one of my constituents had her Toyota Aygo stripped at a parking bay in her residence. In a matter of 17 days, her replacement car was once again stripped. On that occasion another car on the same compound was stripped at the same time. My constituent’s neighbour was a witness to the latter incident and called the police as she watched someone pick apart the cars in real time, but was apparently told by the police that they were far too busy. As my constituent put it:
“I am on a state pension, and I live alone, this has caused me financial problems. But more than that it has left me emotionally and mentally exhausted. I feel if I was to buy or borrow a car that the same would happen. The police had a great opportunity to catch the criminals and at least send a message to others.”
I received another similar case from a member of a street watch group in Harborne:
“A constituent had their car targeted 4 times in one year and swapped to another car as their Toyota Yaris was uninsurable. Their new car was stripped in less than a week.”
A constituent from the same area contacted me to say that a resident on their road had seen one of these incidents taking place in broad daylight. She immediately rang the police but, despite informing them that she was witnessing the incident happening before her eyes, and despite there being a police station around the corner, she was told simply to log the incident online.
The impact that these crimes have on people’s lives should not be understated. I want to share the story of another of my constituents, who works within the NHS at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham in my constituency. She says:
“Last Thursday afternoon on my return to my vehicle after a long day in clinic, I discovered that my new car of only 4 months had been stolen. Although my insurance is fully comprehensive, I am not entitled to a courtesy car as it has not been involved in a smash or been vandalised, and funds to cover the cost of the vehicle will not be paid out until at least 30 days have passed—in case the car is recovered. As you can imagine, I am devastated, and this will impact my working day as well as my life outside massively.
In our department alone, a small team of 11, we have personally experienced, break-ins, stolen belongings, vandalism, damage, a stolen catalytic converter from my previous car 6 months ago, and now vehicle theft. We have all been witnesses to multiple cases of car cannibalism to the cars of other QEHB staff too. The only members of the team who haven’t been directly affected are those who arrive very early and as a result are able to obtain on-site parking. There has also been multiple cases of car theft and vandalism amongst the wider department staff.”
We can see that these are not just isolated incidents, but a pattern of worsening, more frequent and more brazen crime. For the victims, such as those hospital workers, it is devastating; it turns ordinary people’s lives upside down and takes them away from otherwise contributing to society, whether through working in the NHS, looking after their families or supporting their community. However, particularly when so many crimes go unresponded-to and unsolved, crime also has a poisonous impact on our society as a whole, because it shakes our confidence in the very people and institutions we are meant to trust to keep us safe. Take Katy, who also found her car stripped. She said:
“Reporting to the police, for reasons that might be resource related, has been inconsequential and thieves seem to know that, given their increased audacity and frequency of such incidents... This is simply a call for help since my neighbours and myself are growing increasingly hopeless.”
All these things contribute to a growing sense of despair that nothing in this country works any more.
Burglaries are another increasing issue; it is bad enough to have one’s car stripped or stolen, but it is uniquely disturbing to know that strangers have broken into and stolen from one’s own home. There is a unique sense of violation and fear that many victims share with me when they find they have been burgled. One constituent who contacted me told me:
“My wife was home when miscreants broke into the house and since then we don’t feel safe in our own home. During this week as many as 3 more burglaries have taken place. No house which is locked even for a few hours during the day is safe... Police officials come and do the formalities of paper work and rest we don’t know...”.
In Quinton we have faced a spate of burglaries, even as families are at home eating dinner and during the day. Residents say they have noticed how much more brazen criminals have become: they do not care if one person is in, or even if whole families are at home.  That has left residents terrified in their own homes. Almost all of them have Ring doorbells, but they do not seem to deter the culprits.
The point I am making is that the fear that crime puts into victims lasts so much longer than the time taken to experience and report the crime. As we can hear in these testimonies, there is a sense that in this country certain forms of crime simply happen without any consequence. That feeds a sense of isolation, hopelessness and powerlessness that is corrosive to the society that we surely want to create. That is why I applied for the debate and am raising these stories in the hope that the Minister can give my constituents some reassurance that the Government are taking the matter seriously and that the perpetrators of these crimes will see justice.
On car cannibalism especially, we know that parts are often stolen to order and passed on for the valuable materials they contain. Ministers have suggested previously that they would consider a review of the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013 if necessary. Will the Minister consider it? What additional funding have the Government made available to tackle illegal unlicensed operators in the metals recycling sector and launch a wider campaign to tackle that crime? I appreciate that he may mention the National Police Chiefs’ Council metal crime steering group, but what actions have been implemented as a result of that group’s recommendations, and how are the outcomes measured?
The National Crime Agency has referred to
“an overall increase in organised acquisitive crime”,
including car theft. That was evident in the shocking 30% rise in car theft in the most recent year, according to the Home Office’s own statistics. Why does the Minister think his Government have failed to prevent serious organised crime groups from taking hold across Britain’s towns and high streets?
A concern that my constituents raise frequently is that they do not feel that police are adequately resourced to handle the crimes that they report and have to deal with, and, what is more, that the reassuring community police presence needed to deter criminals in the first place is not there. Given that 4,500 police community support officers have been cut since 2015, and only 12% of officers are assigned to neighbourhood policing teams, my constituents have a point, don’t they?
Over the past 14 years, the Government have overseen a litany of broken promises on policing across England. The decision to cut 20,000 experienced police officers, before trying to replace them with vastly less experienced officers, was just one of a catalogue of errors that have had a lasting impact on people’s trust in the police. I have heard colleagues talk about the glory days when they had five or six police officers and police community support officers in every ward, while I am having to fight to get numbers increased. Meanwhile, the number of arrests has halved, prosecutions have almost halved and the number of crimes solved has halved. More crimes are being reported, but fewer crimes are being solved. Criminals are getting away with it on this Government’s watch.
Those figures are accompanied by cuts to youth services and other institutions that were set up to support young people and reduce the causes of crime in our communities. After years of Tory austerity, youth services in Birmingham have been starved of the resources they  desperately need. The total core budget for youth services last year was just £2.1 million, and there are currently just 25 full-time equivalent youth workers providing services to around 120,000 teens across the city—one youth worker for every 4,600 teens.
Young people in my constituency deserve better. They should have the same opportunities to develop and thrive as every other child across the country. That is why the next Labour Government will launch Young Futures, a new national cross-Government programme aimed at giving Britain’s young people the best start to life. A specific strand of activity will be targeted at the young people most at risk of being drawn into violent crime, and will deliver support for young people struggling with their mental health.
In my patch, the high number serious violent offences has become a persistent problem. Everyone has the right to feel safe and secure in their communities but, heartbreakingly, many of my constituents do not. In 2021, our city was shaken to its core by the murder of 14-year-old Dea-John Reid. His attackers chased after him in a car, yelled racist slurs at him and then hunted him down—a child—like a pack of animals. Dea-John’s death was horrifying. He was a much-loved young boy with so much ahead of him. To lose him in such a sudden and brutal way is heartrending. Dea-John was a victim of knife crime—and he is far from the only one.
Last month, it was reported that the West Midlands police are has the highest knife crime rate in England and Wales. Last year, Birmingham was named the gun capital of the UK, having overtaken London to have the highest gun crime rate in the country. Gun crime has emerged as a problem that increasingly haunts my constituents. Just last September in Quinton, residents were terrorised after a drive-by shooting took place on a residential street in broad daylight. A north Edgbaston constituent wrote to me after robbers jumped into her garden and tried to break into her home. After failing to enter her property, the gang held up her neighbours, who were only students, at gunpoint. What is the Minister doing to tackle the surge in gun crime in Birmingham? How does he expect my constituents to feel safe and secure in their homes and communities when neighbourhood police forces have been decimated and crime continues to rise?
I would also like to raise the catastrophic effects of dangerous driving, speeding, car cruising and off-road bike usage that many of my constituents repeatedly experience. Just yesterday morning, a child in my constituency was taken to hospital after being hit by a car during rush hour on a road in Bartley Green. The road where that poor child was hit is notoriously bad for speeding, and I have raised my concerns multiple times with the council and the police, but have repeatedly been told that it is not a priority for speed-calming measures. That shines a light on how speeding impacts people’s lives in my patch and how scarce resources are for tackling this blight on our communities.
Residents in Quinton write to me regularly about the scale of street racing, speeding and dangerous driving on their roads. Last year, two young girls aged four and two were hit by a car on West Boulevard. The year before that, two young boys were injured after a minibus they were passengers in crashed with two other vehicles. Pedestrians do not feel safe with so many crashes happening on our roads.
Off-road bikes have also been a cause of serious concern for my constituents. Recently, a constituent wrote to me to say that the issue of people riding off-road vehicles in his neighbourhood is escalating, as the offenders with illegal off-road motorcycles are now carrying offensive weapons. He said,
“I am now regularly reporting the incidents…But still at this stage nothing is happening to seize these bikes.”
I have taken this matter to the top of Government, asking the Home Office what assessment it has made
“of the adequacy of the (a) powers and (b) resources available to the police to deal with the illegal use of quad bikes.”
In reply, the Government said:
“The police have adequate powers under the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Police Reform Act 2002 to seize vehicles being driven illegally”.
Of course, though, what matters are resources and officer numbers, which I raised with the Government last year when I wrote to the Home Secretary asking when our region will see investment in resources and officer numbers. What exactly are the Government doing to tackle dangerous driving on our roads? Does the Minister accept that the police might not effectively have adequate powers to combat speeding and seize vehicles being driven illegally if resources have been, and continue to be, slashed? Average speed cameras, again, are a resource issue.
I will close my remarks with the comments of another of my constituents:
“I have lived here in Quinton most of my life and can honestly say I have never seen crime so bad to what it is now. There is constant racing on the West Boulevard and up/down”
my constituent’s road
“including near the school where a young child was run over. There has been a stabbing on the road. There have been several cannabis farms and the road always seems to smell of cannabis. There was a serious assault in the early hours Saturday morning with the offender residing in the HMO… There is a vulnerable adult residing at the bottom of the road where the local drug dealers use his property as a ‘hang out’”.
There are similar stories across Edgbaston, Bartley Green, Harborne and North Edgbaston. My constituent also said:
“I know in other areas the police assist with CCTV or mobile cameras to assist with catching offenders. Can this not be an option for”
my constituent’s road
“in a plea to catch local offenders and make residents feel safe again.”
That is a direct plea from my constituent.
Despite the repeated calls from families across Birmingham, Edgbaston and throughout the country, criminals are not being caught or paying the price. Some 90% of crimes are going unsolved, and 2 million crimes—including a shocking 74% of burglaries—were dropped with no suspect being identified. That is the shameful Tory legacy on criminal justice; we simply cannot afford to carry on like this. Labour has made a really important pledge to get neighbourhood policing back into communities with 13,000 extra police officers and PCSOs, to guarantee patrols in our town centres, and to tackle knife crime as part of our mission to halve serious violence.
I put on record my thanks to my local police officers for everything they do with the limited resources they have. I am also grateful to our new chief constable, who has agreed to prioritise neighbourhood policing, but the west midlands has had 2,200 police officers cut and we are still 800 short. Fundamentally, people do not feel safe, and do not feel that they get justice as victims of crime on this Government’s watch.

Chris Philp: I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) on securing this evening’s debate. Let me start by providing some national context before answering some of her questions. She mentioned a number of crime figures in her speech, and it is important to put on record that two sets of crime statistics are published: there is police recorded crime, which are the figures she is quoting, and then there is the crime survey for England and Wales produced by the Office for National Statistics. The police recorded crime figures depend on the propensity of the public to report and how good a job the police do in recording those crimes. Over the last five or seven years, the police have become a lot better at recording all the crimes reported to them, and that is why those numbers have gone up.
However, the Office for National Statistics tells us that the most reliable set of figures for long-term crime trends are not the police reported crimes figures for the reasons I have set out—they depend on the public’s propensity to report and the police’s ability to record them—but the crime survey. Let me give the hon. Lady some of the crime survey figures since 2010, which she mentioned as a reference period. On a like-for-like basis, all crime has come down by 54% since 2010, according to the independent Office for National Statistics, while violence is down by 46%, theft by 47%, domestic burglary by 55%, and vehicle theft by 39%. There is a lot more to do, particularly on shoplifting, vehicle crime and knife crime, which I will come to in a moment, but the overall crime trends are down.
On resources, which the hon. Lady mentioned a few times, across England and Wales as a whole, we now have record numbers of police officers. On 31 March last year, we reached 149,566 police officers. That is more than we have ever had before, and it surpasses the previous peak, which was in March 2010, by about 3,500 officers. So we have record police numbers, and those have broadly speaking been maintained since that record was reached in March last year.
On West Midlands police specifically, its budget this year was £790 million, which is an increase of £51 million year on year, or about 6.4%—considerably higher than the current rate of inflation. I think many of the questions the hon. Lady is asking are questions she should be addressing to Simon Foster, the police and crime commissioner for the West Midlands, who somehow managed to get re-elected a couple of weeks ago, because he has those financial resources. Whereas other police areas around the country have hit record numbers, as has the total, that has not happened in the West Midlands. That is a question I would strongly encourage her to ask Mr Foster, now that he has somehow got himself re-elected.
The hon. Lady asked several questions about specific crime types. She went through quite a long list, so I will quickly go through some of the more important of  them. She mentioned, for example, knife crime, which is a concern. The number of people getting admitted to hospital with an injury by a knife has come down by 26% in the last five years, but there is further to go. London is conspicuously much worse than the rest of the country. In the rest of the country, a lot more progress is being made, but there is an exception in London.
We are doing quite a lot to combat this. First, we are encouraging a greater use of stop and search—done respectfully, of course. That takes knives off the streets, and we would welcome cross-party support for the police to lawfully use stop and search more to get dangerous knives off the street. Secondly, we are investing in various forms of technology. In fact, just this lunch time I was with a company—an American company—that is developing a new technology that can scan somebody walking down a street to see whether they are carrying a knife, and it can distinguish a knife from a mobile phone or something else. It is not quite ready to deploy yet, but I think it will be ready to deploy experimentally this year. I think that could revolutionise our ability to look at a crowd and detect who in that crowd is carrying a knife, and then make sure they are stopped, the knife is taken off them and they are arrested.
We are also doing quite a lot of work on prevention, and the hon. Lady mentioned youth services. Notoriously, Birmingham City Council went bankrupt, but the Home Office is directly funding violence reduction units, to the tune of more than £50 million a year across the country, which are designed to work with young people—whether it is with mentoring, work experience, cognitive behavioural therapy or youth activities, sometimes in partnership with football clubs—to help get them on to a better path.
The Youth Endowment Fund does lots of work here—it has £200 million—and I commend the work of Jon Yates, the chief executive. From next year, there is going to be a £75 million increase in violence reduction unit funding over three years, which is about a 50% increase because, as the hon. Lady says, supporting those young people is so important. This autumn, we will also be piloting, with the Youth Endowment Fund, a new initiative to try to identify the 50 or so of young people or early teenagers who are most at risk of getting into serious violence and serious crime. That includes looking at a range of indicators, such as mental health, education, housing or having an older sibling who is involved in a gang—indicators that go beyond criminal justice, so that interventions can be made to stop a vulnerable or at-risk 12 or 13-year-old becoming a violent 17 or 18-year-old. That initiative has the potential to make a real difference.
The hon. Lady talked about car crime, and crime more widely, which is a concern. I recently met the chief executive of Jaguar Land Rover to discuss exactly this point. We are stepping up work on car crime, and are working with the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead, Assistant Chief Constable Jenny Sims of the Merseyside force. Stolen cars are often sold and rapidly exported in containers to countries including the United Arab Emirates and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. We will do more work to stop that export at the border. We will also increase the amount of intelligence work done, so that we can spot patterns and identify the organised criminal gangs who are often stealing these cars.

Preet Kaur Gill: The testimonies that I shared were so powerful because they are people’s experience of being victims of crime. Those people say that given that the West Midlands police are still 800 police officers short, the resource is just not there, so they are given a crime reference number, and that is it. That does not make people feel safe. The Minister is talking about youth crime and various initiatives, but youth services have been decimated. There is nowhere for young people to go, and there are no opportunities for good jobs or training, so they get exploited. Those are the kinds of things that young people need. They need hope and aspiration.

Chris Philp: Youth unemployment is of course a great deal lower today than it was under the last Labour Government. On resources and police numbers in the west midlands, as I mentioned, the police and crime commissioner in the west midlands has £51 million more this year than last year, so the hon. Lady ought to ask him, ideally publicly, what he is spending that money on, and why he is not addressing the issues that she raises.
I agree that car crime and other crimes affect the victim terribly. That is why police across the whole country, including of course in the west midlands, have committed to always following reasonable lines of inquiry where they exist, including in relation to car crime. A big technological change that we are already exploiting is retrospective facial recognition. If the victim has an image of an offender—a Ring doorbell image, a mobile phone photograph of someone taking a car, closed circuit television footage from a shop where shoplifting has occurred—even if the image is blurred or partially obscured, it can be run through the police national database for a match. The facial recognition algorithm is now extremely accurate. That is a way in which we are already catching a lot more criminals, including some involved in car crime.
I encourage victims who have a picture of a suspect to please give it to the police, because they have committed to always—not sometimes—running it through the facial recognition database; and they have committed to always—again, not sometimes—following up reasonable lines of inquiry where they exist. That is for all crimes, even crimes that some people would historically have considered minor. That commitment was made last September, and it is vital that the police deliver on it and support victims, for the reasons the hon. Lady set out.

Preet Kaur Gill: Will the Minister give an example of where that technology has been used, because I have never known that to happen? When residents send images that seem to be blurred, the police are very clear that they cannot do anything with them. Can the Minister tell me how many forces are using the technology, and when there has been a conviction?

Chris Philp: I wonder how much longer I have, but the technology is being used across the whole country. This year, over 100,000—

Eleanor Laing: Order. To answer the Minister’s question, he has until 7.30 pm, which is some 57 minutes away. How long his speech takes is of course a matter for his discretion; I am putting no pressure on him.

Chris Philp: I am tempted to use all 57 minutes, and I am sure the hon. Lady has interventions that would take up a fair chunk of that, but I will be a lot briefer, which I am sure will be popular with colleagues.
Retrospective facial recognition is being used thousands of times every month, and there are all kinds of examples of it being used successfully. For example, a murder was committed in a Coventry nightclub a couple of years ago, and the only piece of evidence was a photograph of the suspect taken in the nightclub. Running that through the police national database got a match, and the police went to the suspect’s address and found the suspect there, with clothes covered in the victim’s blood, and he has now been convicted. There are hundreds of examples just from the past few months of retrospective facial recognition being used. A photo that is blurred or dark can often be matched. Obviously there needs to be some sort of image that the police can look at, but it is remarkable to see the images that can now be matched, using that algorithm. I strongly encourage everybody to send images to the police. If the police do not run them through the facial recognition database, people should ask why and push the police to do so, because they have committed to doing that.
We now deploy live facial recognition in a way that allows suspects who are wandering around a high street or a train station to be identified and arrested. I have also mentioned technology such as knife scanning. Facial recognition has the potential, in the coming years and months—this is not a long way off; it is being used now—to transform how we catch criminals, so that we do a better job for victims.
The hon. Lady also asked about scrap metal. Interestingly enough, I had a meeting today with the all-party parliamentary group on metal, stone and heritage crime, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous). Lord Birt, who is a member of the APPG from the Lords, also attended. We discussed what more we can do. Scrap metal theft is  estimated at about £500 million a year. When the Scrap Metal Dealers Act was passed in 2013—it was a private Member’s Bill from my predecessor Sir Richard Ottaway—the figure was about £800 million a year, so the value has come down by more than a third since 2013, but we would like to go further.
The hon. Lady mentioned the NPCC group on metal theft; it is my intention to invite myself to that group and attend its next meeting, which I think is on 11 June, to press for more action in this area. The theft of catalytic converters and lead are the areas of most pressing concern.
The hon. Lady briefly mentioned shoplifting, which is a matter of extreme concern. The police have a national retail crime action plan, which includes a plan to target prolific shoplifters, and to follow reasonable lines of inquiry, including by always running the pictures from CCTV through the facial recognition database. The Government published our additional action plan just a couple of weeks ago, which includes a plan to meet the calls from Members of this House, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and others to create a stand-alone offence of assaulting a retail worker. That has been widely welcomed.
Madam Deputy Speaker, you will be relieved to hear that I am not taking up all 57 minutes. I have set out the actions that are being taken and, more importantly, the results that are being delivered. There are some disappointing trends in the west midlands, but I know the hon. Lady will take those up with the police and crime commissioner, Simon Foster, and will ask him what he is doing with the £51 million extra he has got this year. I will work constructively with her and other colleagues to make sure that our communities are kept safe.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.